1. Give a generic definition of sin.

The Epistle of John gives us a concise definition: “Sin is whatever is contrary to the law of God;” or as Melanchthon has defined it: Sin is a defect, inclination, or action, conflicting with the law of God, offensive to God, condemned by him, and causing those in whom it is found, unless forgiven, to become subjects of eternal wrath and punishment. (Melanchthon’s Loci.)

2. Who is the cause of sin?

Not God. Ps. 5:4. But partly the devil, who both sinned himself, and enticed our first parents to sin. John 8:4. Partly also men themselves who obey the wicked desires and suggestions of their flesh. Rom. 5:12.

Ps. 5:4. Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness.

John 8:44. Ye are of your father the devil, who is a liar, and the father of it.

Rom. 5:12. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. (Melanchthon’s Loci.)

Concerning the cause of sin, they teach that although God creates and preserves nature, yet that the cause of sin is the will of the wicked, i.e., of the devil and ungodly men, which without the aid of God turns itself from him, as Christ says, John 8, “When he speaketh a lie he speaketh it of himself.” (Augsburg Confession, Art. xix.)

3. How many kinds of sin are there?

There are various distinctions made between sins. The principal divisions are into:

1. Original and actual
2. Mortal and venial.

Mortal sins are subdivided into sins against conscience, one of which has respect to the Son of man, and another to the Holy Ghost.

4. What is original sin?

Original sin is a natural, contagious disease and imperfection, with which all men are born, not only causing us to be destitute of the fear of God, and of confidence in him, and likewise through wicked desires to be entirely depraved, but also making us subjects of eternal condemnation, unless we be born again.

They likewise teach, that since the fall of Adam, all men born after the course of nature, are born with sin, i.e., without the fear of God, without confidence in God, and with concupiscence, and that this disease or fault of origin is truly sin, condemning, and bringing now also eternal death upon those who are not born again by baptism and the Holy Spirit. They condemn the Pelagians and others who say that the fault of origin is not sin, and who, in order to diminish the glory of the merit and benefits of Christ, contend that man can be justified before God by the strength of his own reason. (Augsburg Confession, Art. ii.)

Or, original sin consists not only in a total want or deficiency of all good in spiritual and divine things, but also in the substitution for the divine image of an inner, deep, wicked, inscrutable, and irrepressible corruption of the whole nature, and all its powers, especially of the higher and nobler faculties of the soul, affecting mind, understanding, heart, and will. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. i, 11.)

5. Prove the existence of original sin.

Gen. 6:5. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Gen. 8:21. The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.

Ps. 51:5. Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Job 14:4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.

Job 15:14, 15. What is man, that he should be clean? or he that is born of woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.

John 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh.

Rom. 8:7. The carnal mind is enmity against God.

Rom. 5:12 (see above, Q. 2).

Eph. 2:3. We are by nature the children of wrath.

Original sin is not any fault committed in act, but it closely inheres fixed to man’s very nature, substance, and essence. Even if no evil thought had ever arisen in the heart of corrupt man, if no idle word had been spoken, nor wicked deed had been committed; yet the nature has been corrupted by original sin, which is innate in us by reason of our vicious descent, and is the spring of all other actual sins, such as evil thoughts, words, and deeds, as it is written, Matt. 15:19, Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts; and at other places, Gen. 6:5; 8:21, Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Form of Concord, Epitome, Art. i, 21.)

First. This hereditary evil is guilt; and hence it is that on account of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, we all are at enmity with God, and are by nature the children of wrath, as the Apostle testifies in Rom. 5:12, sqq., and Eph. 2:3. Secondly. It is a total want, deficiency and privation of original righteousness or the image of God, according to which at the beginning, man was created in truth, righteousness, and holiness; and, likewise, an impotency, inaptitude, and dulness, by which man is rendered entirely unfit for all divine and spiritual things. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. i.)

6. Is this sin therefore propagated in all men?

It is. For since the fall of Adam, all men born naturally, are born with sin, i.e., without the fear of God, without confidence in God, and with concupiscence. On this account all men hate God, and are by nature the children of wrath. (Augsburg Confession, Art. ii; Form of Concord, Epitome.)

7. What punishments follow this sin?

Temporal and eternal death, and, in addition, other bodily, spiritual, temporal and eternal calamities and miseries, as well as subjection to the power and dominion of Satan, into whose grievous service man has been delivered because of sin. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec, Art. i, 13.)

8. What errors contrary to this article must we shun?

Two especially. The former of which is that of the Pelagians, and of the Papists, who, to a certain extent, hold to the same opinions. The latter error is that which formerly was held by the Manicheans, and more recently by the Flaccians.

9. Mention the errors of the Pelagians.

1. They imagine that original sin is only a fault, which, without any corruption whatever of our own nature, has been contracted from the transgression of another.
2. That wicked desires are not sin; but only certain conditions or essential properties of nature with which we have been created.
3. That this defect and hereditary evil is not in the sight of God properly and truly such a sin, as will cause the destruction of him who is not freed by Christ.
4. That even since the fall, our nature is uninjured, and, indeed, especially in spiritual things, it is still entirely good and pure, and in those things pertaining to its own nature, i.e., in its own natural strength and power, it is perfect and unimpaired.
5. That original sin is only something external, of almost as little account as a mole or superficial stain; or that it is only a corruption of accidental properties.
6. That original sin is not a defect, or deprivation, or withdrawal, but only an external hindrance of spiritual power for good, just as if a loadstone were anointed with syrup, in which case its natural strength would not be destroyed, but only weakened.
7. That on account of the fall of the race, our nature is indeed very much weakened and impaired; yet it has not utterly lost all its goodness; but man, from his natural birth, has still some good left, minute, small and weak though this may be, viz., the capacity, fitness, ability, power and strength to begin, to work, or to co-operate in spiritual things. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. i, 17-23.)

10. Prove that wicked desire (concupiscence) is sin?

The Papists, at the time of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, in opposition to Luther, contended that wicked desire was not sin, but only a punishment. But Luther, on the other hand, defended his position that it was sin; and, in so doing, he was right. For Paul says, that he would not have known that lust was sin, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Rom. 7:7. Likewise, “I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” (Apology, Art. ii, 38, 39.)

11. Is the position of the Papists therefore correct when they contend that wicked desire is an incitement possessing no moral character?

By no means. For who could ever say that that has no moral character, which, even though it do not complete its work by obtaining the entire consent of the will, yet leads us to doubt concerning the anger and the grace of God, to be displeased because God does not immediately remove our afflictions, to be filled with wrath, lust, desire of glory, riches, etc.? (Apology, Art. ii, 42.)

12. What are the errors of the second class of errorists, the ancient and the modern Manicheans?

The errors of the former Manicheans concerning original sin were as follows:

1. In the beginning, the nature of man was indeed created by God pure and good; but now, since the fall, original sin from without has been infused by Satan into our nature, and so mixed with it that it has become essential to it, just as poison may be mingled with wine.
2. That it is not the corrupt man himself that sins, but something else existing in him, which is foreign to his nature; and that God, by his law, does not accuse and condemn our nature itself, but only original sin. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. ii, 26.)

13. It has been stated that the doctrine of the Flaccians concerning original sin is nearly allied to that of the Manicheans; what therefore is it?

The Flaccians contend that original sin, properly speaking, and without making the least distinction, is the very substance, nature and essence of corrupt man; so that, since the fall, between the corrupted nature considered in itself, and original sin, there is no longer any difference, nor can any distinction be conceived; or, at least in thought, original sin cannot be separated from our nature itself. (Form of Concord, Epitome, Art. ii, 19.)

14. Can you produce arguments by which to refute the position of the Flaccians?

Yes; and that too from the chief articles of Christian faith, namely, the articles concerning creation, the incarnation of the Son of God, redemption, sanctification, resurrection, etc. (Form of Concord, Sol. Dec., Art. i.)

15. How do you prove this from the article concerning creation?

God created human nature not only previous to the fall, but, even since the fall, he creates, preserves, and sustains the same.

Deut. 32:6. Is he not thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee?

Job 10:8. Thine hands have made me and fashioned me.

Acts 17:28. In him we live, and move, and have our being.

But God is not the creator and preserver of sin; therefore original sin is not the very nature of man, but is something distinct from it. (Form of Concord, ib., 34.)

16. Prove this also from the article concerning the incarnation of the Son of God.

The Son of God assumed our very human nature, but he did not assume original sin; so that in all things, except sin, he became like us his brethren. Heb. 2:17. (Form of Concord, ib., 43.)

Therefore human nature, even since the fall, and original sin, are not one and the same thing, but are to be carefully distinguished.

17. Is the same evident also from the article concerning redemption?

It is. For Christ redeemed that which he assumed. But he did not redeem original sin; and therefore he did not assume original sin. Hence it is necessary to make a great difference between our nature, which Christ assumed and redeemed, and original sin. (Form of Concord, ib., 43.)

18. Can this be inferred in the same manner from the article concerning sanctification?

Yes. For God purifies, cleanses, sanctifies, and saves, not original sin, but man or human nature. (Form of Concord.)

Therefore original sin cannot be man himself, unless by a wicked absurdity, too shocking to be heard, some one would wish with these more recent Manicheans to affirm that original sin is baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, sanctified, and finally saved. (Form of Concord, ib., 45.)

19. Show this also from the article concerning the resurrection.

On the last day, the substance of this our flesh, which we now bear, will rise again, cleansed, however, from sin; and in eternal life we will possess and retain the very soul which we now have, but it will not be contaminated by sin. Job 19:26. In my flesh I shall see God. (Form of Concord, ib., 46.)

Now, if there be no difference between our corrupt nature and original sin, it would follow that:

1. Either this flesh will not rise again on the last day; or,
2. Sin will rise again on the last day, and exist and remain in the elect throughout eternal life;

Both of which suppositions directly contradict the article concerning the resurrection. (Form of Concord, ib., 47.)

20. As original sin is something distinct from human nature, is it a substance or an accident?

This is by no means an unimportant question, inasmuch as everything which is, is either a substance or an accident, not existing by itself, but in a substance, from which it is entirely distinct. Now, it is clearly evident to all whose minds are not disordered, that sin is not anything subsisting by itself, but only inhering in man in such a manner as to be subject to change. Who, therefore, can hesitate to reply frankly, directly, and openly, that original sin is not a substance, but an accident? (Form of Concord, ib., 56.)

21. What is actual sin?

Actual sin is every action, whether internal or external, which conflicts with the law of God; as in the mind, doubts, concerning God; in the will and heart, the flames of wicked desires; and in the members, all motions and actions contrary to the Divine law. (Melanchthon’s Loci.)

22. What is a mortal sin?

In those who have not been born again, every sin is mortal, whether it be original or actual, internal or external. But in those who have been born again, a mortal sin is either a fundamental error, or an internal action, contrary to the law of God, committed against conscience, and depriving its subject of the grace of God, faith, and the Holy Ghost. (Melanchthon.)

23. What is a venial sin?

By its own nature, and in itself considered, no sin whatever is venial; but sin becomes, and is regarded as such, through and on account of Christ. (Melanchthon.)

A venial sin, therefore, is a fall or action of the regenerate, which conflicts with the law of God, but does not cause the loss of grace, the Holy Ghost, and faith; for those who have been born again, in their spirit strive that they may not be led astray contrary to conscience, and they grieve over their corruption, and believe that for the sake of their Mediator, God regards them with favor, and gratuitously forgives them all their sins, through and on account of Christ.

24. What is a sin contrary to conscience?

It is a sin committed by one, who, although warned by conscience, knowingly and willingly perpetrates evil.

25. What is a mortal sin committed against the Son of man?

It is either an attack arising from ignorance, made against Gospel truth, by one who has never been a confessor of this truth; or, it is a denial of the same, unaccompanied, however, by any hostile blasphemy, made by one who has confessed the truth, and who has been led into this by infirmity, or the fear of danger.

26. What is a mortal sin against the Holy Ghost?

It is a voluntary apostasy or denial of either a portion or the whole of Gospel truth, made by one who has acknowledged his faith in it, and who, with deliberate purpose, contrary to the testimony of his own heart and conscience, hostilely attacks and despises the ministry of the Holy Ghost, or the means of grace.

27. Why is it said that this sin against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable?

Not, indeed, because the impossibility of its forgiveness is such, that the greatness of its guilt exceeds and surpasses the mercy of God and the merit of Christ.

Rom. 5:20. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.

1 John 1:7. The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.

1 John 2:2. Christ is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

28. In what sense therefore is this sin said to be unpardonable?

This sin is never indeed forgiven, but this is the fault of the sinner; because:

1. He voluntarily forsakes Christ, without whom there is no sacrifice for sin;
2. He persistently neglects, despises, and, as it were, treads under his feet, the instruments or means of grace, without which no one can obtain forgiveness of sins;
3. And lastly, this sin is connected with final hardening of the heart, so that with confirmed purpose, the sinner at length knowingly, willingly and recklessly proceeds to attack and blaspheme that truth which he had at one time acknowledged.

29. Is sin found in those who have become the subjects of the sanctifying influences of the Spirit?

Paul himself makes a distinction between the sins of the regenerate and the unregenerate. Rom. 8:13. “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” Here he confesses that in the regenerate there are deeds of the body, i.e., many vicious inclinations, doubts, securities, distrusts, wandering presumptions, and wicked affections; but also that these deeds conflict with the spirit, i.e., with spiritual motions, such as calling upon God, faith, patience, chastity, and other exercises of piety. (Melanchthon’s Loci.)