Origins of Original Sin 


By: Michelle Zorzella

Original sin, the Christian doctrine regarding the moral corruption of mankind as a result of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. As consequence of their disobedience, all of humanity is imparted with an ancestral fault; that is, a hereditary state of sin which can only be remitted by the will of God.

The Fall of Mankind

The fall in Christian theology refers to the sin of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Death and transgression entered the world as a result of this first act of disobedience to God. When Adam and Eve were first created, they lived with God in the garden of Edin until they were banished during the fall. In Genesis chapter three, Eve is persuaded by the serpent to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, which God prohibited. The serpent explains to Eve that contrary to what she had been told, she will not die from eating the tree’s fruit, only she will become like the gods knowing good and evil. Despite God’s warning, she decides to eat the fruit and share it with Adam. Upon eating from the Tree of Knowledge, the eye’s Adam and Eve are opened and they realize they are naked. Ashamed, they attempt to hide themselves from the presence of God, which in turn alerts him to what they had done. Adam and Eve are subsequently removed from the garden of Edin, as God fears they may desire to eat from the Tree of Life and live forever now that their eyes have been opened to the knowledge of good and evil. Cherubim (angelic beings) are placed by the east end of the garden to prevent anyone eating from the Tree of Life and becoming like the gods, not only knowing good and evil but existing eternally.[1]

[1]Medieval commentator Rabbi Shlomo (Rashi) Yitzchaki adds: “if he does live forever he is likely to lead people astray, so that they may say, ‘He, also, is a god'” (Rashi on Genesis).

Defining Sin

It is important to note that there is no literal translation for the term “sin” from Hebrew into English. The worst kind of sin is רֶ֫שַׁע resha (meaning “wickedness” #7562) a malicious act,[2] and פֶּ֫שַׁע pesha (“transgression” or “rebellion” #6588), an act of defiance or opposition.[3] Less severe is עָווֹן avon (“iniquity” or “punishment from iniquity” #5771) a sin in which someone knowingly disobeys one of God’s commandments.[4] Most commonly used is חֵטְא (het or chet) meaning to “go astray” (or “miss the mark”). The first use of sin appears in Genesis chapter four in a statement where God reaches out to Adam’s son Cain when he becomes upset that God rejects his offering while accepting his brother Abels:

הֲל֤וֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ׃
“’Surely, if you do right, There is uplift. But if you do not do right Sin couches at the door; Its urge is toward you, Yet you can be its master.’” (Genesis 4:7)

God’s declaration that Cain can overcome his desire to sin indicates each individual has the ability to act freely according to his own will. Eve and Adam equally demonstrate free will by disobeying God’s request not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.[5] Later in Exodus, the Pharaoh exercises his personal will when he disobeys God’s request to let the Israelites take a trip outside of Egypt to worship their god.[6] In Deuteronomy, Moses implicitly affirms mankind’s individual will in a sermo“this day I set before you blessing and curse: blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God… and curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God…” (11:26-28) Sin then could be treated broadly as a personal choice to oppose or harm that which is good.

[2]Deuteronomy 10:27
זְכֹר֙ לַעֲבָדֶ֔יךָ לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְיִצְחָ֖ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹ֑ב אַל־תֵּ֗פֶן אֶל־קְשִׁי֙ הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה וְאֶל־רִשְׁע֖וֹ וְאֶל־חַטָּאתֽוֹ׃
“Give thought to Your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and pay no heed to the stubbornness of this people, its wickedness, and its sinfulness.”
[3]Genesis 31:36
וַיִּ֥חַר לְיַעֲקֹ֖ב וַיָּ֣רֶב בְּלָבָ֑ן וַיַּ֤עַן יַעֲקֹב֙ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְלָבָ֔ן מַה־פִּשְׁעִי֙ מַ֣ה חַטָּאתִ֔י כִּ֥י דָלַ֖קְתָּ אַחֲרָֽי׃
“Now Jacob became incensed and took up his grievance with Laban. Jacob spoke up and said to Laban, ‘What is my crime, what is my guilt that you should pursue me?‘”
[3]Genesis 50:17
כֹּֽה־תֹאמְר֣וּ לְיוֹסֵ֗ף אָ֣נָּ֡א שָׂ֣א נָ֠א פֶּ֣שַׁע אַחֶ֤יךָ וְחַטָּאתָם֙ כִּי־רָעָ֣ה גְמָל֔וּךָ וְעַתָּה֙ שָׂ֣א נָ֔א לְפֶ֥שַׁע עַבְדֵ֖י אֱלֹהֵ֣י אָבִ֑יךָ וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ יוֹסֵ֖ף בְּדַבְּרָ֥ם אֵלָֽיו׃
“So shall you say to Joseph, ‘Forgive, I urge you, the offense and guilt of your brothers who treated you so harshly.’ Therefore, please forgive the offense of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph was in tears as they spoke to him.”
[4]Genesis 4:13
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־יְהוָ֑ה גָּד֥וֹל עֲוֺנִ֖י מִנְּשֹֽׂא׃
“Cain said to the LORD, ‘My punishment is too great to bear!‘”
[4]Genesis 15:16
וְד֥וֹר רְבִיעִ֖י יָשׁ֣וּבוּ הֵ֑נָּה כִּ֧י לֹא־שָׁלֵ֛ם עֲוֺ֥ן הָאֱמֹרִ֖י עַד־הֵֽנָּה׃
“And they shall return here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
[5]Genesis 3:6 “When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.”
[6]4:13 “Yet I know that the king of Egypt will let you go only because of a greater might.”

Still, there is also evidence of a propensity towards selfishness or evil, in Genesis 6:5 “The LORD saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time” and in 8:21 “The LORD smelled the pleasing odor, and the LORD said to Himself: ‘Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I have done.’” In the Talmud, the central collection of works of rabbinical Judaism, the Rabbis teach that God created the Torah as a way of counteracting what they coined יֵצֶר הַרַע‎‎ yetzer ha’ra (the evil inclination). Kiddushin 30b states in reference to Genesis 4:7 “the Holy One, blessed be He, speak unto Israel: ‘My children! I created the Evil Desire, but I [also] created the Torah, as its antidote; if you occupy yourselves with the Torah, you will not be delivered into his hand, for it is said: If thou doest well, shalt thou not be exalted? But if ye do not occupy yourselves with the Torah, ye shall be delivered into his hand, for it is written, sin coucheth at the door. Moreover, he is altogether preoccupied with thee [to make thee sin], for it is said, and unto thee shall be his desire. Yet if thou wilt, thou canst rule over him, for it is said, and thou shalt rule over him.” The Sages believed that yetzer ha’ra made sin inevitable,[7] and that its purpose is to be used as a way for God to judge humanity in the world to come.[8] Elsewhere in the Talmud, the Sages point out that the adversary is the personification of yetzer ha’ra “Resh Lakish said: Satan, the evil prompter, and the Angel of Death are all one. He is called Satan, as it is written, And Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord. He is called the evil prompter: [we know this because] it is written in another place, [Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart] was only evil continually, and it is written here [in connection with Satan] Ibid. II. ‘Only upon himself put not forth thine hand. The same is also the Angel of Death, since it says, Only spare his life, which shows that Job’s life belonged to him.’” (Bava Batra 16a) Not to be taken as demonic influence or a tendency to cause harm, yetzer ha’ra can be understood as carnal desire or perhaps self-interest. In a popular teaching, Rabbi Nahman points out “without the Evil Desire, no man would build a house, take a wife, beget children or conduct business.” (Genesis Rabbah 9:21)

[7]Berakhot 32a
משל לאדם אחד שהיה לו בן הרחיצו וסכו והאכילו והשקהו ותלה לו כיס על צוארו והושיבו על פתח של זונות מה יעשה אותו הבן שלא יחטא
“A parable : [It may be likened] to a man who had a son. He washed him, anointed him, gave him to eat and drink, tied a purse about his neck, and set him at the entrance of a brothel. How can that son help sinning?”
[8]Sukkah 52b
יצר הרע מסיתו לאדם בעוה”ז ומעיד עליו לעולם הבא
“The Evil Inclination entices man in this world and testifies against him in the world to come.”

Overall sin is treated in the Tanakh as universal; in I Kings 8:46 “there is no man who does not sin,” and in Ecclesiastes 7:20 “For there is not one good man on earth who does what is best and doesn’t err.” For the remission of sins, the prophets hold that salvation is earned through the act of repentance.[9] To give one example, the prophet Isaiah wrote of God’s plan for salvation through repentance 55:7 Let the wicked give up his ways, The sinful man his plans; Let him turn back to the LORD, And He will pardon him; To our God, For he freely forgives.” Also concerning sin, there are a number of passages in the Torah which reject the idea that the punishment of sin can be genetically inherited. Moses writes in Deuteronomy 24:16 “Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: a person shall be put to death only for his own crime.” A similar teaching is repeated in Jeremiah 31:30 “every one shall die for his own sins: whosoever eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be blunted.” The prophet Ezekiel, a peer of Jeremiah, further reprehends the notion of vicarious atonement, stating “What do you mean by quoting this proverb upon the soil of Israel, ‘Parents eat sour grapes and their children’s teeth are blunted’? As I live—declares the Lord GOD—this proverb shall no longer be current among you in Israel… The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone.” (Ezekiel 18:2-20)

[9]Proverbs 28:13 “He who covers up his faults will not succeed; He who confesses and gives them up will find mercy.”
[9]Yechezkel 18:31-32 “Cast away all the transgressions by which you have offended, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, that you may not die, O House of Israel. For it is not My desire that anyone shall die—declares the Lord GOD. Repent, therefore, and live!”
[9]II Chronicals 7:14 “when My people, who bear My name, humble themselves, pray, and seek My favor and turn from their evil ways, I will hear in My heavenly abode and forgive their sins and heal their land.”

The Primitive Church

Early church fathers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian were among the first Christian authors to write of the universal sinfulness that was later developed into the doctrine of original sin, most notably by the work of Saint Augustin.

Apologist and Greek father Saint Justin Martyr’s (c. 100 – c. 165) work provides some of the earliest references to the Gospels and detailed accounts of baptism and eucharist practices within the church. On the nature of man, Justin expresses his belief in both hereditary and individual fault, arguing “the human race… from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression.” (Dialogue with Trypho. LXXXVIII) The effect of Adam’s transgression on the whole of mankind is unclear in his treatment. Certainly Justin believes that God–being benevolent–has granted each individual the free will to choose between good and evil. Justin states in The First Apology, “In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative. And if any one disbelieves that God cares for these things, he will thereby either insinuate that God does not exist, or he will assert that though He exists He delights in vice, or exists like a stone, and that neither virtue nor vice are anything, but only in the opinion of men these things are reckoned good or evil.” Justin, a Platonist, offers a notion of virtue and vice in keeping with the normative ethical theories of Plato and later Aristotle. On Christian Baptism, he writes that being born again is essential for the remission of sin for those who seek repentance, “in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone.” (Christian Baptism. LXI) [10]

[10]“in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’”(LXI)

Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, (c. 120- c. 200) a second century church father who studied under Polycarp, disciple of Apostle John, wrote of ancestral fault in his controversial work Against Heresies, holding that by the disobedience of the first Adam sin entered the world and death prevailed over mankind.[11] Irenaeus nevertheless rejects the notion that humans are naturally sinful, arguing “it must be affirmed that He has ascribed all who are of the apostasy to him who is the ringleader of this transgression. But He made neither angels nor men so by nature. For we do not find that the devil created anything whatsoever, since indeed he is himself a creature of God, like the other angels” (IV.XLI.I) He believes both humankind and angelic beings are created in the image of God, and as such cannot be created evil.[12] Therefore neither Adam or the devil should be considered evil by nature. Further, he asserts that God has given us the ability as he does to act according to our own free will. Although we may choose to sin, Irenaeus maintains that God is merciful to those who are remorseful: “when they should be converted and come to repentance, and cease from evil, they should have power to become the sons of God, and to receive the inheritance of immortality which is given by Him.” (IV.XLI.III) Like Justin, Irenaeus wrote of the importance of baptism for the remission of sin without mention of the fall. Whereas Justin considers baptism a voluntary process, Irenaeus believes even infants may be born again through Christ.[13] A fragment from the lost writing of Irenaeus reveals his thoughts towards the sacred ceremony “It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’” (XXXIV)

[11]“as by the disobedience of one man sin had entrance, and by sin death prevailed; so also by the obedience of one man righteousness should be brought in, and bear the fruit of life to those men who were long ago dead.”(III.XXI.X)
[12]“in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves.” (IV.XXXVII.I)
[12]“according to his own benignity He bestowed goddess on good measure, and made men, like himself, endowed with free-will…” (IV.XXXVIII.IV)
[12]“those beings which have fallen away from the Paternal Light, and have transgressed the law of liberty, have fallen away by their own fault, since they were made free, and with authority over themselves.” (IV.XXXIX.III)
[13]”For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”(II.XXII)

Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220), a leading member of the African church (Carthage) and influential figure in the development of Christian theology in the West, authored the first comprehensive body of Christian literature in Latin. In his Treaties on the Soul, Tertullianlike Justin and Irenaeusdenies that human kind was created naturally sinful. He argues that Adam’s desire to sin was provoked by the serpent who tempted Chavah to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.[14] Likewise, it is by our own free will that we fall into sin. In his own words, Tertullian offers his thoughts on free will: “stones also will become children of Abraham, if educated in Abraham’s faith; and a generation of vipers will bring forth the fruits of penitence, if they reject the poison of their malignant nature. This will be the power of the grace of God, more potent indeed than nature, exercising its sway over the faculty that underlies itself within us—even the freedom of our will, which is described as αὐτεξούσιος (of independent authority); and inasmuch as this faculty is itself also natural and mutable, in whatsoever direction it turns, it inclines of its own nature.” (XXI) Although not a natural disposition, Tertullian believes we will continue to sin until one is born again in Jesus. In one instance, he explicitly attributes our universal sinfulness to Adam, stating “every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.” (XL) For Tertullian, baptism–while essential for the remission of sins–is an elective process in which the cleansing of water signifies ones commitment to turn from their transgression and become a follower of Jesus Christ.[15] For this reason, he does not believe infant baptism to be necessary as they are not capable of making such a commitment. Tertullian writes On Baptism, “The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them ‘come,’ then, while they are growing up; let them ‘come’ while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.” (XVIII)

[14]”the spirit neither of God nor of the devil is naturally planted with a man’s soul at his birth”(XI)
[14]“If, again, the evil of sin was developed in [Adam], this must not be accounted as a natural disposition: it was rather produced by the instigation of the (old) serpent”(XXI)
[15]“the Lord had so definitively stated: ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;’ in other words, he cannot be holy.” (XXXIX)

It was the views of Aurelius Augustin (354–430) that prevailed among Protestant reformers during the intellectual revolution of the sixteenth century. In his autobiographical work Confessions, Augustin expounds one of the most fundamental tenets of Original sin: that mankind is evil from his youth, a state inherited by all the children of Adam. Augustin remarks in Book I, “Who remindeth me of the sins of my infancy? for in Thy sight none is pure from sin, not even the infant whose life is but a day upon the earth… But if I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, where, I beseech Thee, O my God, where, Lord, or when, was I Thy servant guiltless?” (VII) Augustin offers the same teaching of Romans 5 as the other church fathers, asserting that death entered to world as a result of Adam’s fall.[16] He adds, “They who say that Adam was so formed that he would even without any demerit of sin have died, not as the penalty of sin, but from the necessity of his being, endeavour indeed to refer that passage in the law, which says: “On the day ye eat thereof ye shall surely die” (A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants. II) Regarding baptism, Augustin draws a distinction between individual and original sin, and argues that being born again is essential for the remission of both personal and hereditary fault.[17] Further he holds that infants should be baptised in order to spare them from condemnation, “It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all” (A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants. XVI)

[16]”In these words, addressed to the Corinthians: ‘By man came death, and by man came also the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,’—what other meaning is indeed conveyed than in the verse in which he says to the Romans, ‘By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin?’”(A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants. VIII)
[17]”For if you understand that sin to be meant which by one man entered into the world, ‘In which [sin] all have sinned,‘ it is surely clear enough, that the sins which are peculiar to every man, which they themselves commit and which belong simply to them, mean one thing; and that the one sin, in and by which all have sinned, means another thing; since all were that one man.” (A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants. XI)

There are three key factors expressed within the doctrine of Original Sin. The first being that God created a perfect world with mankind as good and pure. The second, that a hereditary fault has been mandated upon all of mankind consequently from Eve and her husband disobeying God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Finally, that the only cure for our sinful nature is to receive the grace of God and earn salvation through baptism and the commitment to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of original sin is derived primarily from the writings of the apostle Paul. In his letter to the Romans, Paul affirms the prophets teaching of universal sinfulness 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Later in Chapter 5, Paul makes the earliest connection between the fall of Adam and the universal sinfulness in all of mankind “14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.[…]16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)[…]19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Moreover, proponents of the doctrine hold the universal sinfulness of mankind is a natural state inherited by all the descendants of Adam, as evidenced in Paul’s letter to the Church of Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Concerning Baptism, the doctrine’s teaching of the necessity to be born again is taken from a statement attributed to Jesus towards Nicodemus who is curious about his ability to perform miracles: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

The doctrine which became known as original sin was later formalized in a series of reforms throughout the sixteenth century. During the Lutheran Reformation, the doctrine was distinguished in the Augsburg Confession (1530). Article II Of Original Sin mirrors Augustin’s sentiment that man was born with a sinful nature since the days of Adam:

“after Adam’s fall, all men begotten after the common course of nature are born with sin; that is, without the fear of God, without trust in him, and with fleshly appetite; and that this disease, or original fault, is truly sin, condemning and bringing eternal death now also upon all that are not born again by baptism and the Holy Spirit.”

John Calvin (1509 – 1564) later offered his own interpretation of Augustin’s views in his work Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536). In book II, Calvin outlines a body of teachings early Christian writers called original sin, and alludes to Augustin’s belief in hereditary fault trough Adam’s sin. Here, Calvin provides a basic outline of the doctrine’s tenets:

“Never would Adam have dared to show any repugnance to the command of God if he had not been incredulous as to his word… Man, therefore, when carried away by the blasphemies of Satan, did his very utmost to annihilate the whole glory of God… Therefore, since through man’s fault a curse has extended above and below, over all the regions of the world, there is nothing unreasonable in its extending to all his offspring… This is the hereditary corruption to which early Christian writers gave the name of Original Sin, meaning by the term the depravation of a nature formerly good and pure… The orthodoxy, therefore, and more especially Augustine, laboured to show, that we are not corrupted by acquired wickedness, but bring an innate corruption from the very womb… This is plain from the contrast which the Apostle draws between Adam and Christ, ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned; even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord,'” (Rom. 5:19–21)

In response to concerns raised during the protestant reformation, the Catholic church formed The Council of Trent (1545–1563), which later established the Decree Concerning Original Sin. Similar to Augustin, the Church holds that sin was inherited by the sons of Adam, also alluding to the apostle Paul. Decrees two and five state:

“2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity… or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:—whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned… 5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.”

ANTE-NICENE FATHERS VOLUME 3. “Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian” I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical. WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN.


ANTE-NICENE FATHERS Volume 1. “The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.” Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D.

The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Translated by Edward B. Pusey, D.D.


The Council of Trent. The Fifth Session “DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN”

The Augsburg Confession


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s