A Comprehensive Analysis of the Origin and Development of the Doctrine of Original Sin in Early Church History 

By: Samuel T. Clifford

Introduction

 

The subject of this document is the doctrine's origin in church history and its development. The purpose of this document is not to provide support for the truthfulness of the doctrine of Original Sin. In the words of William Trotter, “A doctrine cannot be proved true by the number of its adherents, or by the length of time during which it has been generally received. Much less is a doctrine true because it is soothing to ourselves, or palatable to men in general. The one, only, infallible test of any doctrine is, What saith the word of God?” (Trotter 195). Therefore, the reader who is questioning whether the doctrine of Original Sin is true will not find their answer in this document. Instead, such a reader should search the scriptures for an answer. The scriptures are the basis for the truth for all doctrine, not the church fathers. Furthermore, the reader should also look at the documents of those named above to further understand the doctrine and its scriptural basis. The purpose of this study is simply to provide the historical basis and context for the origin and development of the doctrine of Original Sin. Much can be learned about a doctrine and opposing doctrines by looking at the history and the church fathers who either affirmed or denied a certain doctrine.

 

Defining Original Sin

 

The doctrine of Original Sin, for the purposes of this article, will be defined as, “the imputation of Adam’s Original Sin… of eating that fruit in Eden to all His Progeny” (Fain 3). In other words, because of Adam’s sin when Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 3:6, his offspring (Progeny) now receive the guilt of that sin. Imputation in the context of this doctrine would mean the charging or attribution of the debt of Adam’s Sin to an individual. Thus, since every human on earth is the offspring of Adam, this would mean every human from conception is guilty of Adam’s Original Sin. 

 

When searching through the writings of the early church fathers, it is imperative that the origin of the doctrine is identified with writings that display a similar to almost identical definition. Any writing that does not follow a similar definition will be labeled as unconvincing or simply an early wiring that helped develop the doctrine. Furthermore, this would also mean that any writing of a church father that supposedly is in disagreement with the doctrine of Original Sin would also need to find its disagreement specifically in the definition provided. A further discussion of this will be found later in the study when discussing church fathers who may have not believed in Original Sin. 

 

Understanding the Development of Doctrine

 

“... the religion of a given race at a given time is relative to the whole mental attitude of that time. It is impossible to separate the religious phenomena from the other phenomena” (Hatch 21).

 

As of 2024, it has been almost 2,000 years since the establishment of the church at Pentecost in 33 AD. During this time period there have been a multitude of doctrines, whether true or false, that have developed. While doctrines have developed in various ways, as some have developed from scripture, emotionalism, or supposed divine revelation, the earliest doctrines of the church followed a similar pattern concerning their origin and development. These doctrines being referenced developed through controversy outside of the church, among the church, and between the church fathers. It seems that whenever a heresy arose among believers or even in some scenarios non-believers, such as the Gnostics, that doctrine that may have already been believed prior was fleshed out and expanded upon. 

 

An example of this can be found when researching the doctrine of the Trinity. Most scholars would agree that the Trinity was believed prior to the early third century. Certainly, through an examination of the Apostolic Fathers, there are writings that reference the Trinity but certainly don’t use the term Trinity and many of them, in fact, don’t include the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit wasn’t considered as God by the earliest church fathers but instead that it wasn’t widely referenced as there were other heresies plaguing the church in the first centuries of the churches existence. It wasn’t until the latter half of the second century to early third century in which heresies concerning the oneness or triune nature of God began to rise. 

More specifically, toward the end of the second century an African church father named Tertullian helped develop the doctrine of the Trinity. Tertullian, who grew up a pagan, lived in Carthage and converted to Christianity. Carthage was an ancient city in Northern Africa that is now Tunisia. In Carthage, a heresy began to rise in the early third century under a man named Praxeas. Little is known about Praxeas as pretty much the only information on him and his beliefs are found in Tertullian’s writing “Adversus Praxean” (Against Praxeas) which was written around 213 AD. Yet, in Tertullian’s writing he does discuss the beliefs of Praxeas and the purpose of writing “Adversus Praxean.” Praxeas, according to Tertullian, believed in modalistic monarchianism, which was the belief that the title of Father and Son were simply different titles of the same subject. Modalism by itself is the belief that the persons of the Trinity simply represent three modes of divine revelation and therefore are not considered to be coexisting. 

 

It was through this new heresy in which church fathers, such as Tertullian, began to write letters and books in opposition to this belief. Tertullian concerning Praxeas belief’s stated, “He [Praxeas] says that the Father Himself descended into the virgin, that He likewise was born of her, and Himself suffered; even that He Himself is Jesus Christ” (Souter 25). Tertullian, in response, firstly argued that even Satan when tempting Jesus understood the distinction between the Father and the Son. Tertullian continued by emphasizing the distinctions between the Persons of the Trinity and their relationship to one another in scripture. Tertullian argued that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all distinct and he rejected the idea that they were simply modes of God. In “Adversus Praxean,” he also discusses the co-eternity and co-equality of the three persons of the Triune God. In Tertullian's discussion on the relationship of the persons of the Triune God, he described the Father as the source, the Son as the begotten, and the Holy Spirit as proceeding from God the Father. This idea outlined by Tertullian was later used in the Nicene Creed to affirm the relationships of the Triune God. 

 

All of this discussion over the development of doctrines such as the Trinity through controversy is to help the reader understand a few key points. Firstly, simply because a doctrine is not discussed in the certain centuries of the church's history doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed. As shown above, there were many doctrines that developed out of controversy and therefore weren’t properly discussed or developed in the earliest centuries of the christian church. Secondly, many doctrines may find its roots in the earliest centuries of the church but may not be expanded upon until centuries later due to the controversy of that time. These points are critical to understand, as they will be referenced throughout the rest of the document. 

 

Outline

 

The remainder of this document will be devoted to the research found over the development and origin of the doctrine of Original Sin. As shown above, understanding the historical context of heresies that the church fathers were writing against is severely important in order to understand the development of certain doctrines and why they are written on more extensively in some parts of church history than the others. Therefore, the following sections will be split into four different parts. Firstly, the study will begin with the historical time period of 33 AD to 100 AD, also known as the period of the apostles. The next section of the study will be 100-150 AD which is the period of the earliest fathers. Next will be 150-300 AD also known as the period of the apologists. Finally will be 300-600 AD, or the period of the bishops. Each section will begin with an overview of what was happening in the church’s history. The heresies, persecution, and changes the church and church fathers were going through will be discussed. Furthermore, with history being fluent, some church fathers will overlap these time periods and they will therefore be discussed in whichever grouping they fit in the most. Additionally, there will be a short biography for every church father that is examined as many times the ideas of church fathers can be traced to a certain place of origin or it can help the reader understand why a church father may hold a certain belief. Throughout the document will be a number of precedents that will be restated in the conclusion as they are crucial to the study. 

 

33  - 100 AD: The Period of the Apostles

 

“The age of the apostles embraces the birth of the church (‘the time of the new order’ Heb. 9:10) through the era of the creation of the new canonical writings, the Greek Scriptures” (Hannah 49).

 

The beginning of the church isn’t found in a text written by a church father but is actually found in scripture itself. Luke, the writer of Acts, details the beginning of the church in 33 AD during Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was sent and indwelled in every believer. Luke writes about the context of the various letters found in the New Testament and the expansion of the Church to the Jews and Gentiles. From Acts we learn that the number that believed in Jesus at Pentecost was 3,000 (Acts 2:41) and it quickly  grew to five thousand (4:4). From there Luke writes that the church continued to grow extensively (5:14; 6:17). Within the book of Acts a notable missionary named Paul emerges. Paul endured three missionary tours in the Eastern Mediterranean and claimed in the book of Romans that “from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ” (Romans 15:19). Afterwards, he was arrested in Caesarea for two years and then spent another two years in prison in Rome before his release. 

 

Yet, with all of this information on the ministries and missionary journeys of Paul it is interesting that many of the works of other disciples and apostles are not mentioned. The impact of the Ethiopian eunuch’s conversion, the missionary journey of Barnabas and John Mark, the full extent of the activities of Peter, and the works of the other ten apostles are missing. However, legends did emerge in church history and no doubt some of them are true. Most scholars believe that after Paul’s release from Roman imprisonment, he labored in Spain and then returned to the isle of Crete. He then left Titus to organize the churches (Titus 1:5) and returned to Asia Minor. It was there he was arrested and taken to Rome where he was martyred in the 60s. The last canonical book, Revelation, was written by the Apostle John during the reign of Domitian (81-96). According to Revelation some churches were facing heavy persecution, some churches were following God’s commands, and others were stumbling. 

 

During this early period in church history, the Romans and other groups did not consider Christianity as separate from Judaism. Instead, Christianity was considered a Jewish sect. This led to the preaching of the gospel in Jewish groups and caused many clashes. In fact, many Christian participated in the customs of Jewish culture even though they were often harassed. It wasn’t until the death of church leadership such as James (62 AD), Peter (64 AD), and Paul (67 AD) as well as later after the first Jewish-Roman War (66-74 AD) when the temple was destroyed that the rift between Christianity and Judaism began to grow. The rabbis of the newly organized Jewish communities after the First Jewish-Roman War started to draw boundaries around Judaism, which in the course of time became the dividing line between the Jewish Christians and the Jews.

 

During this time, the apostles were writing in opposition to many different problems. Many of the problems they were dealing with include paganism as the Romans held to a polytheistic worldview. This paganism and the need for the world to hear the gospel is what kept away many church leaders and apostles from the birthplace of Christianity in Jerusalem. Paul, one of the more prominent figures, not only spread the gospel but also wrote the Pauline Epistles, which consist of letters to the churches in which he warns them of heresies and sin within the church as well as encourages them and reminds them of the promises of Jesus Christ. The first century of the church largely dealt with the foundation of the church and the missionary journeys of various apostles and disciples to spread the gospel around the world. The writings of this century consist of the gospels, the pauline epistles, the book of Acts, the general letters, and Revelation. All of these writings are considered canonical and are a part of the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, the stance these scriptures take on Original Sin is left to those in which this study is done in conjunction with. 

 

100-150 AD: The Period of the Earliest Fathers

 

“The period of the earliest fathers is demarcated by the uniqueness of their literary production. The writings are pastoral in tone and quality in contradistinction to the more polemic writings that followed them. They collectively provide our first glimpse into the emerging church after the apostolic writings of the first century” (Hannah 49). 

 

Following the First Jewish-Roman War (66 - 70 AD) and death of the church leaders, Jerusalem, the birthplace of the church, gradually became less authoritative over christian communities outside of Palestine. According to Eusebius many christians fled and dwelled in Pella in order to avoid the war and destruction of Jerusalem. Consequently, the influence Jerusalem had on christian communities diminished greatly. As a result, three new christian centers began to show prominence: Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Within the new centers of christian influence were the Apostolic Fathers who gave us insight in their works of the problems the church was facing after the New Testament period. The following overview of the Apostolic Fathers and their writings is by no means extensive. Most of the time spent researching these figures was devoted to the issues they were addressing as it is the most important aspect of their writings to understand when considering doctrine.

 

Each Apostolic Father wrote about many different issues as they were writing to differing groups within the church. The grouping of the Apostolic Fathers and who scholars consider to be apostolic or not is somewhat arbitrary. For the purpose of this document, the Apostolic Fathers will align with those found in Micheal W. Holmes' book, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translation. In his commentary he groups First and Second Clement, the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the Shepherd of Hermas, the writers of the Didache, the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus, the letters of Polycarp of Smyrna, the fragments of Quadratus, and the writings of Papias of Hierapolis as a part of the Apostolic Fathers. 

 

During the time of the Apostolic Fathers the church itself began to change and reorganize and new heresies and problems began to emerge. After the death of most of the christian leadership and the apostles the church began to be restructured. In the letters of Ignatius it can be found that Ignatian churches had a threefold structure in which there was one bishop and deacons and elders under the bishop. According to Ignatius. The bishop held the power in the church and must be present in order for baptisms to be valid. These bishops were no doubt meant to fill the void left by the death of the apostles. Yet, simply because the church was restructuring and many accepted it doesn’t mean everyone accepted this change. The writers of the Didache warned against despising the bishops in favor of apostles and prophets. However, this was not the writer's main focus. The work itself is a manual that informs the early church on how baptism should be performed as well as the Lord’s supper. 

 

Clement of Rome wrote to the church in Corinth. The same church Paul wrote letters to. According to Clement it seems that the issues Paul addressed in Corinth had flared up again and required attention. From his writings, the issues of the church seem to have surrounded a revolt caused by younger members of the congregation against the church leadership (3.3; 44.5; 47.6). This once again shows an emphasis of the Apostolic Fathers writing on the structure of the churches and the procedures the church is to take. It is unknown who wrote Second Clement but it is known that it was not Clement. Second Clement is not a letter but instead a sermon. Little is known about the audience of the sermon or why the sermon was necessary.

 

Polycarp of Smyrna had a specific issue he addressed to a church like Clement of Rome but unlike Clement the church he wrote to was that of Philippi. From what readers can infer from Polycarp’s writings, it seems that there was a problem with a presbyter named Valens. Valens had problematic behavior in finances and this was a major problem for the stability of the church in Philippi. Polycarp indicates a belief that wrong behaviors mean that there are wrong beliefs and those with wrong believers, and therefore wrong beliefs, were outsiders. 

 

Hermas’ work “The Shepherd” details five visions that Hermas supposedly experienced. The title of his work is called “The Shepherd” as that is what the angel in his fifth vision appeared as. Hermas writes about a variety of objects in his work but the most prevalent topic is his discussion on sin after baptism. Hermas’ seems to conclude in his writing that post-baptismal sin can be forgiven at least once and that a day of repentance is coming after which no sins will be forgiven. The Epistle of Barnabas follows a differing purpose than most of the other Apostolic Fathers. The Epistle has been labeled anti-Jewish as the author indicates a belief that the Jews couldn’t understand the Old Testament and that the Old Testament can only be understood by looking for typologies of Jesus. The writer also discusses the struggle between good and evil during his time but states that it will end with the arrival of the age to come.

 

Overall, when the true intent of each Apostolic Fathers writings are in view we see an absence of discussion on inherited sin. There is much discussion on individual sin in some works such as that of Hermas but discussion of inherited sin and Adam and Eve are almost completely absent in their writings. This makes sense, however, when understanding the historical context. The death of the apostles and church leadership, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem, left the church without stability and leadership. It is no wonder, then, that the Apostolic Fathers write extensively on the structure, procedures, and priorities of the church. Yet, this doesn’t mean that the Apostolic Fathers aren’t quoted as sometimes being for or against Original Sin as we will next examine. 

 

The Apostolic Fathers’ Views on Original Sin

 

While the purpose of the Apostolic Fathers writings explains the lack of discussion concerning Original Sin, this doesn’t mean there aren’t scholars and theologians who quote these fathers as supporting or opposing Original Sin. Therefore, in this section of the study a discussion will be made over these quotes and whether they support or oppose Original Sin. It is also possible that the quotes may not support or oppose original sin but simply be an early development of the doctrine in which later church fathers drew upon to formulate the doctrine of Original Sin.

 

The Shepherd of Hermas (100-160 AD):

 

Concerning Hermas, there are quotes used in both opposition and acceptance of Original Sin. The discussion will first discuss whether the quotes of Hermas disagree with Original Sin. Then, the quotes used in support of Original Sin will be examined. The quotes used against Original Sin includes but is not limited to the article, “Ancestral Sin in Early Christianity” by laymanbiblelounge.com. The first thing to note is that not every quote outlined in that article will be examined here. It has been determined that many quotes follow the same premise and can therefore follow the same conclusions. This report is in no way meant to discredit or ridicule the author of the article above. However, the conclusions of the article differ from the conclusions of this document. It is up to the reader to read both reports and determine which author accurately represents the beliefs of the church fathers. One of the quotes of Hermas that is used to oppose the doctrine of Original Sin is as follows:

 

“And from the twelfth mountain, the white one, are believers such as these: they are as veritable infants, into whose heart nothing evil enters, nor do they even know what wickedness is, but they have remained in childlike innocence always.” (The Shepherd of Hermas, Parables, 9.29)

 

According to those who view this statement as in opposition to Original Sin, Hermas cannot believe in Original Sin because he labels infants as innocent. In other words, since Original Sin is the belief that the guilt of Adam’s sin is inherited from conception, then this must mean any claim of infants being innocent is a denial of Original Sin. This line of reasoning, however, is faulty as it assumes that the doctrine of Original Sin leads to belief in infant damnation. It will be shown in later parts of the study that many of the church fathers that believed in the doctrine of Original Sin such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Gregory of Nazianzus believed in the doctrine while still maintaining a belief in the innocence of infants. This makes sense when considering that individual sin was in view for many of the church father’s writings. Infants are not guilty of individual sin which is why Hermas and other church fathers claimed them to be innocent. Further discussion will be established later as well as to how many of the church fathers viewed the innocence of infants in light of Original Sin. Yet, this does not mean there are not those who believed in Original Sin and infant damnation. There certainly were church fathers who believed in infant damnation and Original Sin. However, Original Sin doesn’t demand belief of infant damnation, especially among the church fathers. The only way someone can claim that statements of innocence of infants means a denial of Original Sin is if they assume that belief in one must mean belief in another. Such an assumption is illogical, however, as this study will label the church fathers that affirmed Original Sin while also affirming the innocence of infants. The argument also fails to realize that Hermas is focusing on spiritual growth and maintaining innocence. Hermas’ statements in this passage reflects an idealized state rather than a theological denial.

 

Not only does the argument fail because of its assumption, but it is also simply unconvincing. As stated in the introduction, any writing of a church father that supposedly is in disagreement with the doctrine of Original Sin would also need to find its disagreement specifically in the definition provided. In other words, a statement by a church father needs to deny the doctrines definition and not some assumed result of the doctrine. There needs to be a clear denial of inherited sin in order for a church father to be labeled as opposing Original Sin. Without such a denial, any argument of what a church father believed or didn’t believe is mostly speculative and shouldn’t be used as an example of early denial of Original Sin in early church history. With more discussion over church father’s belief of infant damnation or innocence and Original Sin coming later in the report, the quote of Hermas examined above serves to set a precedent. Throughout the article mentioned above, the author uses many church father statements in which the church father claims infants are innocent and the author states these are clear proofs of a denial of Original Sin. Now that this argument has been shown to be faulty, it can apply to many of the similar statements the author uses. Therefore, not all of the quotes the author uses will be examined in this document, especially if they follow the same line of reasoning and are similar. 

 

Those who affirm the doctrine of Original Sin view Hermas as affirming Original Sin in his writings. The writers of Catholic.com wrote in their article “What the Early Church Believed: Original Sin” used Hermas’ work “The Shepherd” to support their belief in Original Sin. The statement of Hermas they used is as follows:

 

“It was necessary,’ he said, ‘for them to come up through water in order to be made alive, for otherwise they could not enter the kingdom of God, unless they laid aside the deadness of their former life. So even those who had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and entered the kingdom of God. For before people bear the name of the Son of God,’ he said, ‘they are dead, but when they receive the seal, they lay aside their deadness and receive life.” (The Shepherd of Hermas, Parables, 9.16)

 

The glaring issue with using this statement by Hermas as an early example of belief in Original Sin is that it doesn’t fit the criteria of the definition of Original Sin. Similar to the problem of the early quote used against Original Sin, this quote does not indicate an affirmation or denial of Original Sin. In the statement above, there is no mention of sin being inherited. The authors of the article that used this quote did not provide an explanation as to why they believe this statement supports Original Sin but it likely is due to the statement of “before people bear the name of the Son of God… they are dead.” This statement simply fails to meet the criteria of being clearly about Original Sin and therefore shouldn’t be used as early proof of Original Sin in church history. It is therefore, from the research of this study, that Hermas does not give clear statements of opposing or affirming Original Sin. As stated prior, this makes sense when considering the historical context as these kinds of doctrines and discussions were not in focus. 

 

Ignatius of Antioch (35-108 AD): 

 

Another apostolic father that some writers use to oppose the doctrine of Original Sin is Ignatius of Antioch. The following quote is used by the author of the articles on laymanbiblelounge.com to show an early opposition to Original Sin:

 

"Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life...The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us” (The Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter 5).

 

Thus far all of the apostolic fathers' quotes have come from the Greek translations found in Micheal Holmes’ book The Apostolic Fathers. However, most of this passage is absent in his writing and this is likely due to the quotation above being inauthentic. The authors of laymanbiblelounge.com do admit that the passage is likely inauthentic. Still, the passage should be examined. The article writer states that this passage is in opposition to Original Sin as it states people become “of the devil” by their own choice and not because of inherited sin. However, this argument fails to understand what Ignatius’ point is and the emphasis he is making. Ignatius, in this passage, recognizes that humans have the capacity to choose between life and death by either being faithful or disobedient. In other words, Ignatius is emphasizing personal responsibility. His focus is on the present choices that individuals in the church make rather than past inherited sin. Ignatius isn’t writing a comprehensive theological treatise but a letter to encourage practical christian living and fidelity to Christ. In summary, Ignatius, when writing to the Magnesians, emphasizes personal choice and its consequences on individuals who aren’t faithful to God. This doesn’t necessarily contradict the doctrine of Original Sin. His focus isn’t on inherited nature but moral decisions. 

 

From the research completed on the Apostolic Fathers, it seems there is not enough evidence or clear statements from the Apostolic Fathers to have a conclusion as to whether they affirmed or denied the doctrine of Original Sin. All statements whether for or against Original Sin fail to meet the criteria and are severely unconvincing. Yet, this isn’t surprising considering there was no major discussion over the origins of sin and inherited sin during this time period as the church was still fairly new and going through major restructuring. The origin of the doctrine of Original Sin is not found in the Apostolic Fathers and there are few, if any, hints of development that may lead to Original Sin. Similarly, there is also no inherent denial of Original Sin. It is therefore the conclusion of this study that the doctrine of Original Sin, while possibly being held but not fully developed, is absent in the Apostolic Father’s time. 

 

150-300 AD: The Period of the Apologists

 

“The age of the apologists is characterized by writings that reflect conflict in the empire and theological dissension in the churches. In the process of answering a rising tide of critics, the bishops began the task of the orderly explanation of the Christian faith” (Hannah 49-50). 

 

During the first century and into the second century, Christianity was considered to be a Jewish sect by the Roman officials and authorities. The Jews themselves were exempt from sacrificing to Roman gods and obey certain Roman demands if it conflicted with their religion. Since the Christians were considered to be a Jewish sect at first, they were also exempt from certain Roman rules and demands. Yet, toward the beginning of the second century the Christians began to lose their affiliation with the Jews gradually. This ultimately led to Christians being considered a new religion and therefore the Romans began to require them to follow the practices of the Roman Empire. Many Christians, however, did not adhere to these Roman rituals and practices and were therefore persecuted by the Romans. This is because the Roman authorities believed the Christians disconnection from the imperial society showed a lack of unity. It is with this state of mind that they began to prosecute Christians and accuse them of crimes to which Christians had to defend themselves. However, Christians didn’t defend themselves with swords or spears but instead with words.

 

Those who began to defend their faith through their writings are labeled as the apologists. Through their writings, not only did they defend their faith from Roman persecution but also from new heresies that were beginning to arise. Their writings against Roman persecution was to persuade the Roman officials that the persecutions of Christians were unjust. During this time period there were many different apologists who rose to the occasion during their time to further create an influence for Christianity within the Roman Empire. While it certainly wouldn’t hurt to write an extensive overview as to every different apologist and the heresies and problems they were facing during this time period, time does not permit for this. Neither is such extensive research necessary to understand the doctrine of Original Sin in this time period. Instead, this document will continue with a broad overview of the problems and heresies the church fathers were facing during this time and more specific details will be found when actually discussing certain apologists’ statements and their implications on Original Sin.

 

The apologists during this time didn’t only write to Roman officials and external opposition. There were many times these apologists had to write to internal heresies the church was facing. One of the most destructive heresies and well known heresies of this time was Gnosticism. Gnostics believed that an inferior god to the supreme God created the world. This god would be a mixture of both good and evil and would therefore explain why there is evil in the present world. They claimed that deliverance and salvation from the world come through the teachings of the messiah (Jesus). They did not believe Jesus died on a cross for their sins but instead believed Jesus simply came to show humanity the way to salvation. This knowledge of salvation, according to their teaching, was not for all, but only for the chosen and the enlightened. 

 

Another heresy that plagued the early Christian church started due to a teacher named Marcion (100-160 AD). Marcion was born in Asia Minor and moved to Rome around 140 AD. Ultimately, Marcion’s heretical views caused him to be excommunicated around 144 AD. Marcion’s beliefs and teachings are only known through the writings of his opponents such as Tertullian. Marcion’s teaching was influenced by gnostic teaching but was different in that he taught that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the God of the Greek Scriptures (New Testament) were different. He believed that there were two gods and two messiahs. The Old Testament God was evil and cruel while the New Testament God was merciful. This set of beliefs ultimately resulted in more differing beliefs such as which scriptures are authoritative. Marcion’s teachings were considered as heavily heretical and therefore became a large topic during this time period. Tertullian was the one who rose to the occasion most of all in his writing Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion). 

 

Another heresy that came to fruition during this point in time was Montanism, a movement that sought to restore the present church to the apostolic church in which the gifts of the spirit such as healing and prophecy were practiced. The Montanists believed that the divine word of God was still being revealed through divine revelation. Due to this belief some church fathers began to establish the canon of the scriptures. The movement was largely deemed as heretical and it was condemned, yet, it did have some supporters such as Tertullian. 

 

There are plenty of other heresies that arose during this time but did not have the influence to require much writings in response. Some of those heresies will be discussed in the following pages when the apologists themselves are elaborated on and their statements examined. Furthermore, because the historical context has been given for this specific time period, it is time to begin to discuss the doctrine of Original Sin during this time period and whether or not its origin or early development can be found. 

 

The Apologists’ Views on Original Sin

 

Many different apologists wrote about a variety of issues and heresies between 150-300 AD. A discussion of every different apologist is too time consuming and simply unnecessary for the goal of this study. John D. Hannah, in his work Invitation to Church History: World, views there to be six major apologists during this time period. Those being Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian of Carthage. These six major church fathers will certainly be discussed and their views, or lack of a view, on Original Sin. With each apologist will be a discussion over their different works and a biography for each of them. 

 

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD):

 

Justin Martyr was born in Neapolis, Samaria, likely to Greek or Roman parents, where he grew up as a pagan. Around 130 AD he was in Caesarea where he met a man who ultimately converted him to Christ through the Hebrew scriptures. Following this conversion he began to teach in Ephesus and then later he also began to teach in Rome. There he organized a Christian school but was also martyred under Marcus Aurelius. While he was alive, he wrote three major treatises: The First Apology, The Second Apology, and Dialogue with Trypho. His first apology was written around 155 AD and was addressed to Emperor Antonius Pius.  His second apology was written early in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. In both apologies Justin Martyr addresses the Emperors and pleads with them to end the persecution the Christians were facing. He defends the Christian faith against charges of cannibalism and incest hoping to restore the protection the Christians once had when they were considered a Jewish sect.

 

Justin Martyr’s most notable and influential work is his Dialogue with Trypho. In this work Justin writes about a debate between him and a man named Trypho, who was a spokesperson of Judaism. Justin argues that the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament) should lead people to believe in Christ if understood properly as they point to the divinity of Christ. Much of the discussion found in this work centers around the Law found in the Hebrew scriptures and how Christians are to view and observe the Law as well as the consequences of not observing the Law and what part of the Law is to be followed. Overall, Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho covers a variety of topics but is centered around discussing the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. 

 

Concerning Justin Martyr and Original Sin, his discussion of inherited sin as a cause for condemnation is largely absent. In a similar manner to that of the Apostolic Fathers, it seems the question of inherited sin was not yet discussed. Justin Martyr did discuss the topic of personal sin as necessary to his debate over the law and Christian’s following God’s commandments. It must be remembered from the discussion of Ignatius that an emphasis on personal sin does not equal a denial of Original Sin. To argue that Justin Martyr doesn’t believe in Original Sin because he believes personal sin is what leads people to condemnation is fallacious. The negative inference fallacy occurs when it is assumed that if a proposition is true then a negative inference from that proposition must also be true. It is certainly plausible, and evidential as will be shown later, that church fathers can believe in the condemnation caused by personal sin while also believing in Original Sin. This is likely the case here seeing as Original Sin was not a major discussion topic that was central to Justin Martyr’s writings. 

 

In contrast, some argue that the beginnings of the doctrine of Original Sin may be found in Justin Martyr’s writings. According to many proponents of this theory, Justin Martyr’s belief that children are born with wayward inclinations and his support for infant baptism show his affirmation of Original Sin even if he doesn’t explicitly state the doctrine in his writings. However, this argument is simply unconvincing. Like Hermas, in order for Justin Martyr to be considered as upholding the doctrine of Original Sin he must state something similar to the definition given at the beginning. Certainly he could be beginning to develop an idea into Original Sin, but the doctrine of Original Sin is simply absent in his writings. 

 

Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202 AD):

 

Irenaeus of Lyons was born in Asia Minor who had seen Polycarp when he was around fifteen years old. In his writings he accounts Polycarp’s teachings when he was younger and Polycarps statements about knowing the apostle John. Irenaeus later left Asia Minor and traveled to Rome where he studied in the school that Justin Martyr started. From Rome he then went to Lyons, Gaul, which is in modern day France. Later in his life he became the bishop of Lyons after the martyrdom of Photius. Of Irenaeus’ works there are two that have been preserved, Against Heresies and Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching. Against Heresies is directed toward gnostic groups and is meant to serve as a refutation of their teachings. Of Irenaeus’ two works this is the most well known. The second work of Irenaeus on apostolic preaching is simply an attempt by Irenaeus to set forth the apostolic message.

 

Irenaeus’ work Against Heresies will be at the forefront of the discussion on Irenaeus’ view on Original Sin. This work served to refute the present heresies that Irenaeus and other Christians were facing that day. The heresy he covers the most in this work was Gnosticism which was discussed prior in the section about the historical context of the apologists. During his refutation Irenaeus begins to flesh out hamartiology (the study of sin) and anthropology (the study of man). J. N. D. Kelly, when discussing the theory of recapitulation, in his book Early Christian Doctrines states, “The conception [of recapitulation], Pauline in its ultimate derivation, of the inauguration of a new, restored humanity in Christ seems to have reached Justin [Martyr] from the theological tradition of Asia Minor. It was taken up and deepened by Irenaeus…” (Kelly 170). The theory of recapitulation in summary is simply the theory that Christ’s death on the cross for our sins reversed the course of mankind from disobedience created by Adam to obedience. This is distinct from the doctrine of Original Sin because in order to believe in recapitulation one does not necessarily have to believe in inherited sin but can simply believe that due to Adam everyone's nature is disobedient and humans don’t actually have inherited guilt.

 

Yet, J. N. D. Kelly continues in his book to say, “Irenaeus… was also the first to work out comprehensive theories of both original sin and of redemption” (Kelly 170). This statement is astounding and central to this study as the author is claiming that the origin of Original Sin can be found in the writings of Irenaeus. Therefore, the question is what proof does the author bring from Irenaeus’ writings to support this statement? J.ND. Kelly provides this quote from Irenaeus that shows a clear indication of Original Sin:

 

“He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning” (Against Heresies 5. 16. 3)

 

In this quote from Irenaeus, the “He” in the beginning refers to Jesus Christ as Jesus is God in the flesh. Irenaeus then states that “we” or humanity offended God in the first Adam. This refers to the first few chapters of Genesis in which Adam sinned by eating from the tree of which God said not to eat. Irenaeus then reflects his beliefs of recapitulation by stating that the second Adam, Jesus, reconciled humanity to God. Finally, Irenaeus emphasizes that humanity's debt was owed to God—the very One whose commandment of not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil humanity had violated. This statement by Irenaeus certainly fits the definition provided for the doctrine of Original Sin. Christ reconciled us to God through His sacrifice. Irenaeus clearly states that we sinned when Adam sinned in the garden and that made us debtors because we transgressed “at the beginning.” It is with this quote that we find the earliest example of a church father believing and fleshing out the doctrine of Original Sin. 

 

Yet, the author of LaymanBibleLounge.com try to dispute Irenaeus’s statement of Original Sin by stating that Irenaues believed in the innocence of infants in Against Heresies 4:38 and he believed personal sin brought condemnation Against Heresies 4:37. Yet again, this logic is faulty. Concerning the first statement about infants being innocent the authors assume that because infants are innocent there is a denial of Original Sin. Instead of making this assumption, they should read Irenaeus’ clear statement of a proto-Original Sin doctrine and note that it is possible to affirm the doctrine while also holding the innocence of infants in personal sin. Furthermore, the authors make the negative inference fallacy when claiming that Irenaeus’ belief in personal sin leading to condemnation is a denial of Original Sin. Many christian theologians and church fathers who held to Original Sin also believed in personal sin leading to condemnation. Both personal sin and Original Sin are foundations for condemnation and belief in one does not dictate the denial of the other. Irenaeus’ main claim in this text is the theory of recapitulation as shown by his statement of “the Second Adam.” With recapitulation in mind it is clear that Irenaeus is stating that humanity has offended God in Adam’s original sin. The terms “transgression” and “debtors” show condemnation that is caused by Original Sin.

 

Tertullian of Carthage (160-225 AD):

 

Tertullian was born of a Roman centurion and grew up in Carthage, North Africa where he was a pagan until his conversion and acceptance of a Christian community in Rome toward the end of the second century. After his conversion around 190 AD he returned to Carthage and began writing various works. He is sometimes referred to as the “father of the Latin Church” because he was the first church father to compose his treatise in Latin. Toward the end of his life he joined the Montanists which separated him from the mainstream church and as a result his contributions and writings weren’t immediately recognized. However, he did have many works that are extremely influential. Like the other pologists he wrote an Apology that was focused on defending the Christian faith against accusations of paganism. His most notable work is Against Marcion in which he refutes the teachings of Marcion (see 150-300 AD: The Period of the Apologists section for more). Two of his works that should be noted for this are On Baptism and On the Soul. The former is on various aspects of Christian baptism and the latter is about the origin, nature, and destiny of the soul. 

 

In Tertullian’s work On the Soul, we see the development of the doctrine of Traducianism. According to Jacob Fain, “Traducianism is the doctrine that teaches that not only the body comes about by natural generation through intimate conception, but also the soul and spirit comes about through this way as well” (Fain, Jacob 2). In other words, when two parents conceive a child every part of that child (Body, Soul, and Spirit) is created. This stands in opposition to Creationism which states that God creates a new soul when a human being is conceived. Another very less popular view is that the soul has always existed, but that theory doesn’t require discussion here. Instead, it can be found when discussing one of its early proponents, Origen of Alexandria.. Tertullian in his work On the Soul states:

 

“How, then, is a living being conceived? Is the substance of both body and soul formed together at one and the same time? Or does one of them precede the other in natural formation? We indeed maintain that both are conceived, and formed, and perfectly simultaneously, as well as born together; and that not a moment’s interval occurs in their conception…” (Tertullian, On the Soul, 27)

 

This discussion over Traducianism is necessary as God cannot create anything imperfect and therefore belief in Creationism should lead to a denial of Original Sin. However, Traducianism provides the method in which guilt is inherited from man to offspring. This does not mean that Traducianism always results in belief in the doctrine of Original sin, only that without Traducianism the doctrine of Original Sin has no method. Tertullian, like Irenaeus, provides a statement that is extremely similar to the doctrine of Original Sin:

 

“And (the man, Adam) being given over to death on account of his sin, the entire human race, tainted in their descent from him, were made a channel for transmitting his condemnation” (Tertullian, The Soul’s Testimony, 3).

 

This statement from Tertullian refers to Adam being given over to death due to his sin. Tertullian argues that this “tainted” the human race as a whole which is central to the doctrine of Original Sin. Furthermore, Tertullian argues for universal condemnation when he states that humanity was “made a channel for transmitting condemnation.” This channel would be through conception (Traducianism) and shows a belief in universal guilt as the doctrine of Original Sin advocates. Similarly to Irenaeus and Hermas, Tertullian makes claims of infants being innocent. In fact, that is a major part of his work On Baptism. At this point a precedent should be noted that Original Sin and infant damnation and or baptism are not dependent on one another, as some claim, and that the origin and development of Original Sin in its early years is void of the burden of infant damnation and baptism. 

 

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD):

 

Thus far from the discussions over Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian of Carthage we have seen a development of the doctrine of Original Sin. Both Lyons and Carthage are considered West, especially during the time of the Romans. So from the West we begin to see the rise of the doctrine of Original Sin. However, what about the East? One apologist named Clement was located in Alexandria, Egypt. He was born around 150 AD in Athens and was a missionary theologian to the Greek world. Clement began as a student traveling in Italy as a pagan but converted to Christianity and eventually became the second president of the Christian catechetical School in Alexandria. During his time as president he wrote several theological works that most focused on refuting Gnostics and polemics. Some of his most notable works are: Exhortation to the Heathen, The Instructor, and the Miscellanies. 

 

"Such are the arguments of Julius Cassian, the originator of deceits...Let them tell us how the newly born child could commit fornication, or how that which has done nothing has fallen under the curse of Adam. The only consistent answer for them, it seems, is to say that birth is an evil, not only for the body, but also for the soul for the sake of which the body itself exists. And when David says: ‘In sin I was born and in unrighteousness my mother conceived me,’ he says in prophetic manner that Eve is his mother. For Eve became the mother of the living." But if he was conceived in sin, yet he was not himself in sin, nor is he himself sin...If birth is something evil, let the blasphemers say that the Lord who shared in birth was born in evil, and that the virgin gave birth to him in evil. Woe to these wicked fellows! They blaspheme against the will of God and the mystery of creation in speaking evil of birth. This is the ground upon which Docetism is held by Cassian and by Marcion also, and on which even Valentine indeed teaches that Christ's body was "psychic." (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book III, Chapters XIII, XVI, & XVII)

 

In this statement written by Clement of Alexandria above we see the first true denial of the tenets of Original Sin. Clement argues here that there is no transmission of sin or guilt in birth and that birth is not evil specifically. Ultimately, with this quote there is no room for Original Sin to be a part of Clement’s theological views. Clements denial of Original Sin was not uncommon in Alexandria as will be shown with Origen. This difference between Western and Eastern Christians on the doctrine of Original Sin led J. N. D. Kelly to state, “The Alexandrian theologians drew an equally realistic picture of man’s plight, but the chief premiss of the doctrine of original sin which we have seen emerging in the West, the conception of our physical solidarity and thus our participation in his sinful act, was largely absent from their thinking” (Kelly 179). In summary, this study as well as studies done by others have concluded that out of the West the doctrine of Original Sin began to develop but out of the East there was an overall denial. 

 

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD):

 

Unlike Clement of Alexandria, Origen was born into a Christian family and actually watched his father martyred when he was a teenager. Many have considered Origen's writings to be confusing and this is likely largely due to his mixture of the scriptures and Greek philosophy which was fairly common from the writers coming from Alexandria and the East. Throughout his life he became a teacher in his native city and also wrote many works including a refutation of the heretic Celsus (Against Celsus) and a theology text (First Principles). Eusebius stated that Origen was a student of Clement of Alexandria, and that he succeeded Clement as head of the Catechetical school under the authority of the bishop Demetrius. Yet, even with Clement of Alexandria being the teacher of Origen we still see a difference in their views concerning the fall of Adam. 

 

When reading Origen’s works it seems he believed in a form of Original Sin as he states “all are tainted with the stain of original sin which must be washed off by water and the spirit” (Origen, Homily on Leviticus in Quasten, Patrology, vol.2, 83). This concept of Original Sin ultimately led to Origen’s belief in infant baptism. However, his view of Original Sin is vastly different from the true definition and concept of the doctrine. Unlike many early Christian writers origen did not believe in Traducianism or Soul Creationism but instead believed in the theory of the preexistence of the soul. According to Origen’s view on the preexistence of the soul, God created a finite amount of souls at the beginning and all souls were equal and alike. They were also all endowed with free will and yet all of these souls, except Christ’s, chose to depart from God. A more comprehensive analysis of Origen’s views can be found in J.N.D. Kelly’s book “Early Christian Doctrines” on pages 180-183.

 

Furthermore, another variation of Original Sin found in Origen’s writing is the topic of a historical Adam and literal Genesis. Much debate has sparked over whether Origen held to an allegorical or literal interpretation of the creation story. Many scholars (such as Tatha Wiley and J.N.D. Kelly) argue that he did not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis while others (such as Andrew Sibley) state that he did hold to a literal view of Genesis (see their works in the bibliography for a deeper discussion of the arguments for both sides). Whether or not he did believe in a historical Adam or not will not redeem Origen and suddenly make him a true proponent of the doctrine of Original Sin. If he did not believe in a historical Adam then he cannot be considered a proponent of Original Sin. However, if he did hold to a historical Adam then he still cannot be considered a proponent of original Sin due to his belief in the theory of the preexistence of the soul. Therefore, while Origen may be considered of holding a variation of the doctrine of Original Sin his view is too distinct to be considered for an early church father who held to the doctrine. 

 

Cyprian of Carthage (200-258 AD):

 

Returning to the West we come to the last major apologist that will be discussed in this document, Cyprian of Carthage. Cyprian was a bishop of Carthage and led the church in North Africa during a time of persecution from Rome. The Romans persecuted the church in North Africa because they were not sacrificing to the pagan Roman gods. Ultimately, Cyprian went into hiding in early 250 AD and many Christians either apostasized or obtained certificates declaring they had sacrificed to the pagan gods. After the persecution had diminished Cyprian returned to Carthage around 251 AD and regained his authority as bishop. Throughout the rest of his life Cyprian faced more persecution (specifically in 254 AD) and had squabbles with the bishop of Rome at the time, Stephen. Renewed persecution in 257 under emperor Valerian, however, proved to be the most extensive persecution and resulted in his martyrdom the next year in 258 AD.

 

Cyprian of Carthage is one of the first church fathers to begin fleshing out the doctrine of Original Sin more from its primeval stage in Irenaeus and Tertullian. It is important to understand the purpose of his writings though in order to understand why Cyprian wrote on Original Sin. In North Africa during Cyprian’s time as bishop a controversy arose concerning the baptism of infants. Cyprian and other bishops met in council around 253 AD and argued that no-one should be hindered from baptism on account of how old they were. Due to this controversy Cyprian wrote extensively on baptism in general and for infants. This also means he discussed the reason for baptizing infants:

 

“We ought not to shrink from hindering an infant, who being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins-that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another” (Quasten, Patrology, vol. 2, 379, citing Cyprian’s Letter to Fidus [Epist. 64]). 

 

There are a few things that should be noted about this statement of Cyprian. Firstly, this quote certainly shows Cyprian’s belief in Original Sin as he uses Adam as the cause of the “contagion” in humanity and infants and states the sin of infants to be “the sins of another.” Secondly, note that Cyprian actually states the infants had not yet sinned, in other words they were innocent. Cyprian’s remarks here should be compared to the claims of other church fathers where they claim infants to be innocent. Cyprian upholds, like other church fathers, that infants have no personal sin. However, due to his discussion on infant baptism specifically he states the exception. That exception being the original sin of Adam that has tainted humanity. 

 

East v. West

 

Overall, from the discussion on the beliefs of the christian apologists we have identified the first steps in the development of Original sin. While it may not be as fleshed out and developed as the writings of Augustine that we will come to later, many apologists such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian all make statements that are nearly identical to the tenets of Original sin. However, with the arrival of the doctrine of Original sin we also see the first true denials of Original sin. As stated earlier, one should note the difference between Original sin in the East and West. Western apologists affirmed the doctrine of Original sin while the East, more specifically Alexandria, denied Original sin. This distinction between East and West is likely due to the influence of Greek philosophy. Scholars widely accept that the school in Alexandria as well as the jews and Christians who lived in Alexandria were affected by Greek philosophy. In fact, Adolf Von Harnack considered Greek philosophy to be the direct cause of Origen’s allegorical interpretations of scripture. Certainly with this knowledge one can infer that Origen’s denial of Original sin due to his allegorical interpretations of the creation story were largely due to Greek philosophy. There is no doubt, therefore, that his teacher, Clement of Alexandria, was also largely influenced by the Greek philosophy that plagued Alexandria. J.N.D. Kelly agrees when he writes, “The Greek fathers, with their insistence that man’s free will remains intact and is the root of actual sinning, have a much more optimistic outlook than the West” (Kelly 349). In other words, the Greek fathers philosophy on Free Will as well as their emphasis on personal sin is why we see either a denial of Original Sin, or simply lack of discussion of the doctrine, in their writings.

 

In conclusion, the doctrine of Original Sin finds its earliest origins in the West in the middle to late second century with apologist Irenaeus of Lyons in his work Against Heresies. It is further proposed, understood, and developed by Tertullian of Carthage. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian affirmed the doctrine of Original sin while also maintaining the innocence of infants in personal sin and Tertullian specifically argued against infant baptism. Then after Tertullian the apologist Cyprian of Carthage began to further develop the doctrine with a belief in infant baptism. However, it was also in the late second to early third century that we began to see a denial of Original sin. It is in the East that we find the earliest dismissal of the doctrine of Original Sin from Origen and Clement of Alexandria. This denial is largely due to the influence of Greek philosophy in their teachings and belief systems. 

 

300-600 AD: The Period of the Bishops

 

“The age of the bishops is defined by the triumphant emergence of the church through political patronage and the great ecumenical councils that defined Christian orthodoxy” (Hannah 50).

 

The Relationship Between the Church and Roman Empire

 

For more than two centuries the Christian church had been under a substantial amount of persecution from the pagan Roman Empire. Throughout those two centuries the apologists wrote various apologies to Roman officials and Emperors hoping to bring an end to the persecution they were facing. Yet, it wasn’t until the fourth century with the first Christian emperor that the policies of the Romans toward Christians changed. Emperor Constantine I (305-337) is considered to be the first ever Christian emperor. However, he was originally a believer in solar monotheism, which is the belief in the sun as a single supreme deity. Around 312 AD he likely had a conversion event at the battle of Milvian Bridge. The next year in 313 AD, Western Emperor Constantine I and the Eastern Emperor Licinius met in Mediolanum (modern-day Milan) and created a new religious policy.  Under this proclamation all citizens had the freedom to worship whatever deity they pleased. It also assured Christians of legal rights as under persecution many were tried and executed without a fair trial. Furthermore, the edict directed Roman officials to return Christians of confiscated property. 

 

Yet, even with this new edict, the religious transformation of the Roman empire was slow. After years of uneasy peace between Constantine and Licinius, Constantine defeated Licinius in 324 AD and ordered his execution. As a result, the Roman Empire was consolidated. Throughout Constantine’s reign he identified Christ with the supreme deity he worshiped as a child. Some suggest that Constantine truly wasn’t a Christian and instead used his false faith because he recognized his legionnaires were mostly Christians. Others suggest that Constantine remained in pagan practices because he wasn’t able to reconcile the duties of a Roman Emperor with the ethical requirement of being a Christian. In fact, Constantine did not receive a baptism until his deathbed around 337 AD. Either way, Constantine’s influence on Christianity in Rome was extremely significant as he created a period of toleration in Rome for over 200 years. 

 

The relationship between Rome and the Church did not cease developing after Constantine I. Constantine’s successors, Constantius II (337- 361 AD) and Constans (337-350 AD) reigned in the East and West respectively. Both continued their father’s legacy in making legislation that was in favor of Christians. Constantius especially took an active role in the affairs of the church that was divided during the Arian crisis. Yet, after the bloody purges of Constantius there was only one nephew of Constantine left. Emperor Julian ruled between 361 to 363 AD during which he gained public sympathy for his restoration of paganism. At first he was a Christian but later turned to paganism which caused him to gain the epithet “the Apostate.”  After Julian’s rule was a man named Valentinian (364-375 AD) I who refused pagan sacrifices which suggested strong Christian convictions. 

 

Theodosius I (378-395 AD) of the East and Gratian (379-384 AD) of the West contributed much to the establishment of Christianity in Rome. Gratian renounced the pagan title of pontifex maximus in 381 AD. Theodosius, on the other hand, was the first emperor to receive baptism at the beginning of his reign. Theodosius II (398-450 AD) published the Theodosian Code which was a general codification of various decrees between 312 and 437 AD. The code is the most reliable source of the social, economic, and religious policies of Christian emperors. Finally, it was under emperor Justinian (527-565 AD) that all forms of paganism were eliminated in the Roman empire.

 

Overview of the Heresies Between 300-600 AD

 

During the time of the bishops numerous heresies arose and were in need of opposition. Luckily many bishops rose to the occasion and wrote a variety of works on a variety of subjects. They didn’t only do this individually but they also did this in the form of councils. A discussion over most of these heresies is simply unnecessary. However, a discussion over a few of them will provide enlightenment over the theological predicaments the church fathers found themselves in during this time.

 

One of the main heresies that the church fathers were opposing during this time was Arianism. Arianism was an attempt by a presbyter of Alexandria named Arius to solve the controversy the church was facing over the discussion between the relationship between the Father and the Son. Arius taught that Christ the Son did not always exist but instead was created by God. Athanasius quotes Arius’s Thalia where he states:

 

“The Son was not always; for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was made out of nothing, and once He was not. and He was not before His origination, but He as others had an origin of creation” 

(Orations Against the Arians, 2.1)

 

This heresy led to controversy between the bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his presbyter Arius. Arius charged Alexander of affirming Modalism due to his supposed overstatement of the unity of God. Meanwhile, Alexander accused his presbyter of failing to affirm the deity of Christ. After Constantine’s victory over Licinius he took an active role in the church's affairs. Concerning this dispute Constantine was advised by his personal confidant, Hosius of Cordova, of the need for a council to resolve the controversy. It was then that Constantine called bishops to gather in Nicaea to discuss and decide on the current dilemma. Arianism was not the only issue they discussed but it was certainly the focus of much of the council’s discussions. Ultimately, the decision of the council of Nicaea was that Christ was not created and was truly infinite. Yet, Arianism still did not die out after this decision and instead began to develop and reach wider audiences in the course of its history.

 

One heresy that arose and developed during this time period was Apollinarianism. Apollinaris of Laodicea (310-390 AD) disagreed with the Arianistic view of the Son and upheld the belief of a coeternal and co-equal Trinity. However, Apollinaris was extreme in his opposition to Arianism and actually promoted a belief that Christ had no human rational soul. In other words, Christ was not fully man. This teaching was quickly considered heresies and was refuted by church fathers such as Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus. Furthermore, Apollinaris and his teaching was condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381 AD. Another heresy came from Nestorius who was an archbishop of Constantinople and created some heretical views concerning the nature and person of Christ. Nestorianism was the belief that there was a disunity of Christ’s human and divine nature. In other words, according to Neostorians, Christ exists as two persons sharing one body. This heresy is in opposition to the doctrine of hypostatic union which states that Jesus is fully God and fully man in one person. This heretical view was one of the main topics of the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD where it was condemned.

 

While certainly a more comprehensive discussion could be made for each of these heresies and their development and condemnation could be discussed it is simply unnecessary. Other heresies also arose during this time as well as the continued opposition of older heresies such as Modalism, Gnosticism, and more. Yet, discussing all of these heresies is frivolous and too time consuming for the subject of this document. What we can infer from the subject above is that during the time of the bishops there were many christological issues. Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Gnosticism, and more are all heresies that are focused on the nature and relationship of Christ. Nevertheless, during the time of the bishops the doctrine of Original Sin was fully fleshed out due to the Augustine-Pelagian controversy which will be discussed in the next section.

 

The Bishops’ Views on Original Sin

 

Similar to the section on the apologists there is simply not enough time to discuss every single bishop’s and councils perspective on Original Sin. Perhaps at a later date more will be added to the discussion. However, the bishops and church theologians that were chosen currently were chosen as through research it has been determined they contributed much to the doctrine of Original Sin’s development in early church history. For perhaps a broader overview of even more bishops and their stances on Original Sin during this time it is advised to read Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly and Original Sin by Tatha Wiley.

 

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373 AD):

 

Saint Ephrem the Syrian (or Ephraem Syrus) was born and died in what is modern day Turkey. He was a theologian like the other church fathers we have mentioned but he was also a hymnist. His theological treatise as well as his polemical works provide a look into the beliefs and Christian traditions of Syriac Christianity. His works are numerous as the 5th century Byzantine historian Sozomen credits Ephrem the Syrian for writing more than 1,000 writings. This number may not be truly accurate but it is certainly plausible. However, not all of those writings have survived today. Luckily some of his hymns have survived the test of time to give us great insight into the Syriac church. In his Hymns of the Epiphany he writes:

 

“Adam sinned and earned all sorrows, and the world, following his lead, all guilt. And it took no thought to how it might be restored, but only of how its fall might be made more pleasant for it. Glory to Him that came and restored it!” (Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns of the Epiphany 10:1)

 

In this hymn from Ephrem he provides a very clear statement that aligns with the doctrine of Original Sin. At first he is writing about the original fall in Genesis 3 when Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, he continues to discuss the full consequence of this fall on humanity. Ephrem believed that the consequence was an inheritance of guilt in humanity. This is certainly a clear affirmation of Original Sin which indicates that Syriac church likely largely affirmed Original Sin during this time even though it was not yet titled “Original Sin.” Ephrem continues to state that humanity was restored from the fall because of ‘Him that came.” This obviously is a reference to Jesus who came down from heaven to save humanity from the consequences of the fall.

 

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD):

 

Gregory of Nazianzus was a church father in Asia Minor who wrote extensively against Arianism and in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. Gregory was born into a Christian family and later in his life was in fellowship and communications with St. Basil of Caesarea. After Basil died it was Gregory who became the prominent spokesman in Asia Minor of the Nicene party. He was actually invited to take charge of the Nicene congregation at Constantinople. Gregory almost became a bishop of various cities such as Constantinople but it seems there was always some technical issue in which he was not accepted. Yet, that did not affect his great influence on the church at all. 

 

Concerning Original Sin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: 

 

“And I should not be wholly saved, I who have wholly sinned and was condemned in the disobedience of the First-formed and the treachery of the Adversary” (Greogry of Nazianzus, Oration, 22.13)

 

Here we see Gregory of Nazianzus speaking of the doctrine of Original Sin in a very personal manner. He states that he himself sinned and was condemned in the disobedience of the first-formed. This first-formed is none other than Adam and the adversary is the serpent. In other words, Gregory viewed himself as sinning with Adam in Genesis 3 and therefore was condemned since then. 

 

Something that should be noted is that Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as Gregory of Nyssa which will be discussed next, affirmed the doctrine of Original Sin while also believing infants were innocent. This is just like Irenaeus and Tertullian who were discussed prior. J.N.D. Kelly, concerning the teachings of the Greek Fathers in the third century, writes, “[b]oth the Gregories, for example, as well as Chrysostom, teach that newly born children are exempt from sin” (Kelly 349). Tatha Wiley also agrees when she states, “...the Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 399), and John Chrysostom (d. 407), share the view that humankind shares Adam’s fall but that infants were exempt from sin” (Wiley 50). These Greek fathers show the doctrine of Original Sin rising in the East. At the same time of believing Original Sin, however, they also affirm the innocence of infants. Therefore, any claim that infant damnation and Original Sin go hand and hand in church history is simply false.

 

Gregory of Nyssa (335-394 AD):

 

St. Gregory of Nyssa was an extremely influential theologian who, like Gregory of Nazianzus and other church fathers of the time, discussed the doctrines of the Trinity and opposed the heretical anti-trinitiarian doctrines. Gregory of Nyssa also discussed Adam’s fall and the restoration of the world by Jesus. Most theologians agree that he is another example of Original Sin starting to have a foundation in the East. J.N.D. Kelly stated, “...Gregory of Nyssa, after saying that we wear skins ‘as if Adam lived in us’, adds that men ought to ask for forgiveness daily since they share in Adam’s fall” (Kelly 350). 

 

“Evil was mixed with our nature from the beginning… through those who by their disobedience introduced the disease. Just as in the natural propagation of the species each animal engenders its like, so man is born from man, a being subject to passions from a being subject to passions, a sinner from a sinner. Thus sin takes its rise in us as we are born; it grows with us and keeps us company till life’s term. (Gregory of Nyssa, The Beatitudes; Against Eunomios, Book 12)

 

Here, Gregory seems to have a proto-Original Sin statement that indicates the early rise of Original Sin in the East. He states that evil has been a part of humanity’s nature since the beginning aka Adam’s fall as indicated by the statement “their disobedience introduced the disease.” Gregory further affirms this evil is inherited as “man is born from man” and “sin takes rise in us as we are born.” Certainly, these statements leave little room for doubt that the doctrine of Original Sin was beginning to rise in the East. J.N.D. Kelly agrees when he stated, “[t]hough falling short of Augustinianism, there was here the outline of a real theory of original sin” (Kelly 351). In other words, both Gregories, as well as John Chrysostom, while perhaps not discussing the doctrine of Original Sin to its fullest extent found in the writings of Augustine, clearly affirmed a proto-Original Sin doctrine at the very least. 

 

Ambrosiaster (fourth century):

 

Ambrosiaster is the name given to an anonymous author of a commentary on St. Paul’s letters. It was attributed to St. Ambrose who was the bishop of Milan. Yet, in 1527 Erasmus doubted that the work was written by Ambrose and his perspective is currently accepted by most scholars. Augustine, who used some of the commentary to establish his perspective on Original Sin, attributed the works to Hilary of Poitiers. Concerning Original Sin, the commentator seems to derive the doctrine from scripture. In his commentary he translated Romans 5:12 to say “in whom all sinned” instead of “because.” Ambrosiaster certainly took the “in whom” as a reference to Adam and His fall. Therefore, once again we see a proto-augustinian Original Sin statement. 

 

The Augustine-Pelagian Controversy:

 

It turns out that one of, if not the most, pivotal developments of the doctrine of Original Sin will be the last point of discussion in this current study. The controversy between Augustine and Pelagius developed Original Sin but also other doctrines concerning humanity, Christ’s sacrifice, and more. Due to its influential nature, this subsection will require much research and proper care in order to fully illuminate the importance of this controversy and its effect on the development of Original Sin. 

 

Augustine of Hippo was certainly one of, if not the, most influential bishop in the history of the church. He was born in Tagaste, Numidia (modern day Algeria) around 354 AD and died in Hippo (also modern day Algeria) around 430 AD. His father, as a Roman official, believed in the pagan gods of the empire. His mother, however, embraced Christianity and was a follower of Christ. At first, Augustine was a student of secular philosophy and found Christianity to simply be illogical. Yet, through the teachings of St. Ambrose of Milan he began to put away his intellectual doubts about Christianity. He converted to Christianity in 386 and was baptized by Ambrose the next year. Augustine, after his baptism and education in Carthage, returned to Hippo where he was made a priest and eventually a bishop as well. Augustine wrote many works during his time on earth and many of them are widely known and appreciated by both Christians and non-christians today. He wrote various polemics against various groups such as the Manichees and Pelagians as well as theological treatise such as The City of God, On the Trinity, and On Christian Doctrine.

 

On the other side of the controversy was the teachings of Pelagius. There is not too much information available for a thorough biographical work for Pelagius. However, much of the information known about Pelagius will be described below. Firstly, Pelagius was likely born in 354 AD and died after 418 AD. Around 380 AD Pleagius traveled to Rome and was a highly regarded church teacher. In Rome he criticized the doctrine of divine grace and befriended a man named Celestius. After the fall of Rome in 410 AD, Celestius and Pelagius traveled to North Africa where they were criticized heavily by Augustine. Pelagius then traveled to Palestine around 412 AD where he was accused of heresy at the synod of Jerusalem. However, he ended up clearing himself. Yet, Pelagius then decided to write On Free Will in response to Augustine. This work ultimately resulted in his condemnation by two African councils. In 417 AD, Pope Innocent I endorsed his condemnation and excommunicated Pelagius. 

 

Concerning the Augustine-Pelagius controversy itself, tensions between the two Christian teachers began around 405 AD with Pelagius’ commentary of Paul’s epistle to Rome. For historical context, during this time Rome was being invaded by Alaric the Goth (410 AD). Many Christians were apostatizing because Rome had never been invaded while the city was Pagan but it was now while it was Christian. Augustine responded to this problem in his work The City of God in which he creates a theodicy. He states that God raises up and protects nations to serve His purpose and then judges said nation when they have fulfilled their purpose. This was his explanation for Alaric’s invasion. Pelagius, however, viewed the apostasy as being the result of a lack of moral responsibility in the church. He objected to Augustine’s perspective on human inability because he believed it led to moral abandonment. Thus, to preserve moral responsibility, Pelagius denied the doctrine of innate, as well as inherited moral and spiritual depravity aka Original Sin. Pelagius believed that every individual is born into the innocent state that Adam had before the Fall of man in Genesis 3 and it is through the individual's personal sin that this innocence is lost. Additionally, Pelagius also adhered to the doctrine of Creationism and therefore believed God created every human soul individually.

 

Augustine, however, contended that Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden had changed humanity’s nature. Augustine believed that Adam’s sin caused not only the loss of moral rectitude, but also a spiritual separation from God. He argued that salvation begins with God as God is the only hope and that electing grace is rooted in divine love. Augustine’s first response to Pelagius came in On the Merit and Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants. In this work Augustine argued that death was the penalty of sin for the loss of original righteousness over humanity in Adam’s sin. The way John D. Hannah describes this belief from Augustine as “condemnation precedes actions; actions are the evidence of condemnation” (Hannah 137). Furthermore, there is the return of the belief in infant baptism in Augustine’s writings. He viewed baptism as cleansing the penalty of Adam’s first sin and thus argued that infants need to be baptized. He also wrote On the Spirit and the Letter in which he emphasizes the necessity of divine grace because adherence to the law only brings condemnation and not salvation. On the Predestination of the Saints and On Grace and Freedom of the Will by Augustine were also directed toward the heretical teachings of Pelagius. In those works Augustine focuses on the topic of Free Will and the grounds of divine election being rooted in the actions of God and not humans. 

 

In these works, Augustine created what is likely the best theological case for Original Sin and further emphasized its teachings and its importance as well. Augustine used Original Sin to explain the need for salvation and Jesus Christ. He argued that adherence to the Law could not save because of the condemnation brought upon humanity by Original Sin. He further affirmed the historicity of Genesis 3 and viewed Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden to be the “Original Sin” that condemned humanity and caused the inherited guilt. While expanding upon the doctrine of Original Sin he also developed doctrines that are connected to Original Sin. He discussed Natural Will and man’s inability as well as a predestination from God based on Love and the necessity of God’s grace. Augustine’s influence on Original Sin was so influential that it was instituted into church tradition by the Council of Orange in 529 AD. Ever since that moment, while there are still controversial viewpoints and denials of Original Sin, the doctrine of Original Sin has been a part of traditional church theology.

 

Conclusion and Timeline

 

Overall, the doctrine of Original Sin has a rich history within the Church. Its truthfulness should be determined by scripture but there is no doubt that many church fathers advocated for it both spiritually and philosophically. While it is largely absent in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers it does come to fruition in the writings of the Apologists. Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 AD) was the first to describe the doctrine of Original Sin even if it was not yet called Original Sin. Tertullian of Carthage in the second century also further established the doctrine of Original Sin. These two church fathers were from the West, however, and differed greatly from Origen and Clement of Alexandria of the East, who denied Original Sin due to the influence of Greek Philosophy. This denial of Original Sin in the East did not last long though as shown in the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. Yet, the doctrine of Original Sin at this time was still in its earliest development and was not yet fully expanded upon and related to other doctrines until the influential church father Augustine wrote extensively on the subject in opposition to the heretical teachings of Pelagius. This development of Augustine makes sense when considering the earlier discussion on the development of doctrine. Similar to the doctrine of the Trinity, Original Sin developed due to controversy.

 

Sources

 

Introduction

 

Trotter, William. Plain Papers on Prophetic and Other Subjects, Revised edn (London: G. Morrish, n. d.)

 

Defining Original Sin

 

Fain, Jacob. “Original Sin (Part 1).” inri_biblical_theology. March 21, 2024. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/C4y41JsLDmd/?igsh=MXFmbjh5N3UzdDBldQ==

 

Understanding the Development of Doctrine

 

Hatch, Edwin. The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church. Richard Clay and Sons, 1897.

 

Oliver, William. The praxis of Adversus Praxeam: Tertullian’s view on the Trinity. Verbum et  Ecclesia, https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ve.v42i1.2362

 

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Monarchianism”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 10 Jul. 2015, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Monarchianism. Accessed 17 May 2024. 

 

Souter, Alexander. Tertullian Against Praxeas. Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920. 

 

Outline

 

Hannah, John D. Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity. Kregel Academic, 2019. 

 

33 AD - 100 AD: The Period of the Apostles

 

Kesich, Veselin. Formation and Struggles: The Church Ad 33-450: The Birth of the Church Ad 33-200. N.p., n.d. Print. 

 

Hannah, John D. Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity. Kregel Academic, 2019. 

 

100-150 AD: The Period of the Earliest Fathers

 

Maier, Paul L. Eusebius: The Church History. 1999

 

Holmes, Micheal W., editor. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed., Baker Academic, 2007.

 

Hannah, John D. Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity. Kregel Academic, 2019. 

 

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Shepherd of Hermas". Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 Oct. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shepherd-of-Hermas. Accessed 21 May 2024.

 

 The Apostolic Fathers’ Views on Original Sin

 

Layman Bible Lounge. “Ancestral Sin in Early Christianity”. Layman Bible Lounge, www.laymanbiblelounge.com/2023/05/ancestral-sin-in-early-christianity.html?m=1.

Accessed 21 May 2024.

 

Catholic Answers. ‘What the Early Church Believed: Original Sin.’ Catholic Answers, https://www.catholic.com/tract/what-the-early-church-believed-original-sin. 

Accessed 22 May  2024.”

 

Holmes, Micheal W., editor. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed., Baker Academic, 2007.

 

150-300 AD: The Period of the Apologists

 

Hannah, John D. Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity. Kregel Academic, 2019. 

 

Kesich, Veselin. Formation and Struggles: The Church Ad 33-450: The Birth of the Church Ad 33-200. N.p., n.d. Print. 

 

Ehrman, Bart D. “Apologists.” The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, edited by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.   201-18. Cambridge Core, doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521460838.011.

 

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Marcion of Pontus". Encyclopedia Britannica, 1 May. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marcion-of-Pontus.  Accessed 24 May 2024.

 

The Apologists’ Views on Original Sin

 

Hannah, John D. Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity. Kregel Academic, 2019. 

 

Kesich, Veselin. Formation and Struggles: The Church Ad 33-450: The Birth of the Church Ad 33-200. N.p., n.d. Print. 

 

Layman Bible Lounge. “Ancestral Sin in Early Christianity”. Layman Bible Lounge, www.laymanbiblelounge.com/2023/05/ancestral-sin-in-early-christianity.html?m=1.

Accessed 25 May 2024.

 

Wiley, Tatha. Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings. Paulist Press, 2002. (pg. 40-49)

 

Wingren, Gustaf. "St. Irenaeus". Encyclopedia Britannica, 14 Mar. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Irenaeus. Accessed 26 May 2024.

 

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines: Revised Edition. HarperOne, 1978.

 

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Beloved Publishing LLC, 2014.

 

Fain, Jacob. “Original Sin (Part III, Traducianism).” inri_biblical_theology. April 20, 2024. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/C6ACQolLyhC/?igsh=MTd4eWEyMGU0Yml0Mw==

 

Fredericksen, Linwood. "St. Clement of Alexandria". Encyclopedia Britannica, 22 Feb. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Clement-of-Alexandria. Accessed 28 May 2024.

 

“Origen of Alexandria.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/. Accessed 29 May 2024.

 

Chadwick, Henry. "Origen". Encyclopedia Britannica, 29 Mar. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Origen. Accessed 29 May 2024.

 

Sibley, Andrew. “Origen, origins, and allegory”. Creation Ministries International, August 2018. https://creation.com/origen-origins-and-allegory. Accessed 30 May 2024. 

 

Frend, William Hugh Clifford. "St. Cyprian". Encyclopedia Britannica, 26 Feb. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Cyprian-Christian-bishop. Accessed 30 May 2024.

 

Castellano, Daniel J. “The Dogma of Original Sin.” Arcane Knowledge, www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/original2.htm#sec2_2. Accessed 1 June 2024.

 

Haas, Christopher. “Alexandria.” Bible Odyssey, https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/alexandria/. Accessed 1 June  2024.

 

Adolf Von Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol. 2 (3d ed; translate. Neil Buchannan; New York: Russell 7 Russell, 1958), esp. 332-48.

 

300-600 AD: The Period of the Bishops

 

Hannah, John D. Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity. Kregel Academic, 2019.

 

Meyendorff, John. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450-680. The Church in History, vol. 2,  St. Vladmir’s Seminary Press, 1989.

 

Matthews, J.F. and Nicol, Donald MacGillivray. "Constantine I". Encyclopedia Britannica, 18 May. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Constantine-I-Roman-emperor.  Accessed 2 June 2024.

 

Perowne, Henry. ‘Julian”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 24 April. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julian-Roman-emperor. Accessed 2 June 2024. 

 

Kelly, John N.D.. "Nestorius". Encyclopedia Britannica, 28 Mar. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius.  Accessed 5 June 2024.

 

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Nestorianism". Encyclopedia Britannica, 5 Apr. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nestorianism. Accessed 5 June 2024.

 

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Saint Ephraem Syrus". Encyclopedia Britannica, 5 June. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Ephraem-Syrus.  Accessed 6 June 2024.

 

Hardy, Edward R.. "St. Gregory of Nazianzus". Encyclopedia Britannica, 8 Mar. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Gregory-of-Nazianzus. Accessed 6 June 2024.

 

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines: Revised Edition. HarperOne, 1978.

 

Wiley, Tatha. Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings. Paulist Press, 2002.

 

Hardy, Edward R.. "Saint Gregory of Nyssa". Encyclopedia Britannica, 8 Mar. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Gregory-of-Nyssa.  Accessed 6 June 2024.

 

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Ambrosiaster". Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 July. 1998, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ambrosiaster. Accessed 7 June 2024.

 

O'Donnell, James. "St. Augustine". Encyclopedia Britannica, 23 Apr. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Augustine. Accessed 8 June 2024.

 

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Pelagius". Encyclopedia Britannica, 1 Apr. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pelagius-Christian-theologian. Accessed 8 June 2024.