Editing Original sin (section)

==History==
===Scriptural background and early development===
For the [[Apostle Paul]], Adam's act released a power into the world by which sin and death became the natural lot of mankind, a view which is evident in [[2 Esdras]], [[2 Baruch]] and the ''[[Apocalypse of Moses]]''.{{sfn|Boring|2012|p=301}} Paul uses much of the same language observed in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, such as Adam-death associations. He also emphasizes the individual human responsibility for their sins when he described the predominance of death over all "because all have sinned" ({{bibleverse|Romans|5:12}}).{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=38–47}} Early Christianity had no specific doctrine of original sin prior to the 4th century.{{sfn|Obach|2008|p=41}} The idea developed incrementally in the writings of the [[Early Church Fathers]] in the centuries after the New Testament was composed.{{sfn|Wiley|2002|pp=37–38}} The late 1st- or early 2nd-century ''[[Didache]]''<nowiki/>'s seemingly exclusive preference for adult baptism offers evidence that its author may have believed that children were born sinless. The authors of the [[Shepherd of Hermas]] and the [[Epistle of Barnabas]], also from the late 1st or early 2nd centuries, assumed that children were born without sin. However [[Clement of Rome]] and [[Ignatius of Antioch]], from the same period, took universal sin for granted but did not explain its origin from anywhere; and while [[Clement of Alexandria]] in the late 2nd century did propose that sin was inherited from Adam, he did not say how.{{sfn|Wiley|2002|pp=38–39}}

The biblical bases for original sin are generally found in the following passages, the first and last of which explain why the sin is described as "original":
* {{bibleverse|Genesis|3}}, the story of the expulsion of [[Adam and Eve]] from the [[Garden of Eden]];
* {{bibleverse|Psalm|51:5}}, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me";
* {{bibleverse|Romans|5:12–21}}, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned..."{{sfn|Vawter|1983|p=420}}
Genesis 3, the story of the Garden of Eden, makes no association between sex and the disobedience of Adam and Eve, nor is the serpent associated with [[Satan]], nor are the words "sin," "transgression," "rebellion," or "guilt" mentioned.{{sfn|Toews|2013|p=13}} The words of Psalm 51:5 read: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me", but while the speaker traces their sinfulness to the moment of their conception, there is little to support the idea that it was meant to be applicable to all humanity.{{sfn|Alter|2009|p=181}} In the 4th century, Augustine would use texts such as {{bibleverse|Romans|5:16-18}} to justify his theory of original sin as originating in ''propagation'' since Adam rather than being merely ''imitation'' of Adam as [[Pelagius]] claimed ("And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.").<ref>[https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105/npnf105.x.iii.xv.html ''A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants'', Book 1, Chapters 15 and 21.]</ref> However, [[Pelagianism|Pelagians]] and modern interpreters such as M. Eugene Boring argue that Paul's meaning is not that God punishes later generations for the deeds of Adam, but that Adam's story is representative for all humanity.{{sfn|Boring|2012|p=301}}[[File:Giovanni Francesco Barbieri - Saint Paul.jpg|thumb|[[Paul the Apostle]] (<abbr>c.</abbr> 5 – c. 64/65 AD), early Christian evangelist whose writings are taken as foundational for the doctrine of original sin.|left]]

=== Second Temple Judaism ===
The first writings to discuss the first sin at the hands of Adam and Eve were early Jewish texts in the [[Second Temple Period]], such as the [[Book of Sirach]] and the [[Wisdom of Solomon]].{{sfn|Toews|2013|p=16}} In these writings, there is no notion that sin is inherent to an individual or that it is transmitted upon conception. Instead, Adam is more largely seen as a heroic figure and the first patriarch. Rather, the beginnings of sin were seen in the stories of [[Cain]] or the sons of God mentioned in [[Genesis 6]].{{sfn|Toews|2013|p=36}}

Despite the lack of a notion of original sin, by the 1st century, a number of texts did discuss the roles of Adam and Eve as the first to have committed sin. While {{bibleverse|Wisdom of Solomon|2:23–24}} states that "God created man for incorruption{{nbsp}}[...] but death entered the world by the envy of the devil" (2:23–24), {{bibleverse|Ecclesiasticus|25:24}} states that "Sin began with a woman, and we must all die because of her" (25:24). The notion of the hereditary transmission of sin from Adam was rejected by both [[4 Ezra]] and [[2 Baruch]] in favor of individual responsibility for sin. Despite describing death as having come to all men through Adam, these texts also held to the notion that it is still the individual that is ultimately responsible for committing his own sin and that it is the individual's sin, rather than the sin of Adam and Eve, that God condemns in a person.{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=26–32}} [[Ian A. McFarland|Ian McFarland]] argues that it is the context of this Judaism through which Paul's discussions on the fall of Adam are to be better understood.{{efn|name=mcfar}}

=== Greek Fathers before Augustine ===
[[Justin Martyr]], a 2nd-century [[Christian apologist]] and philosopher, was the first Christian author to discuss the story of Adam's fall after Paul. In Justin's writings, there is no conception of original sin and the fault of sin lies at the hands of the individual who committed it. In his [[Dialogue with Trypho]], Justin wrote "The Christ has suffered to be crucified for the race of men who, since Adam, were fallen to the power of death and were in the error of the serpent, each man committing evil by his own fault" (chapter 86) and "Men{{nbsp}}[...] were created like God, free from pain and death, provided they obeyed His precepts and were deemed worthy by Him to be called His sons, and yet, like Adam and Eve, brought death upon themselves" (chapter 124).{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=48–61}} [[Irenaeus]] was an early father appealed to by [[Augustine]] on the doctrine of original sin,{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} although he did not believe that Adam's sin was as severe as later tradition would hold and he was not wholly clear about its consequences.{{sfn|Wiley|2002|pp=40–42}} One recurring theme in Irenaeus is his view that Adam, in his transgression, is essentially a child who merely partook of the tree ahead of his time.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=79}}

[[Origen of Alexandria]] had a notion similar to, but not the same as original sin, since Genesis was largely [[Allegory|allegorical]] for him. On the other hand, he also believed in the [[pre-existence of the soul]], and theorized that individuals are inherently predisposed to committing sin on account of the transgressions committed in their pre-worldly existence. Origen is the first to quote Romans 5:12–21, but rejected the existence of a sinful state inherited from Adam. To Origen, Adam's sin sets an example that all humanity partakes in, but is not inherently born into. Responding to and rejecting Origen's theories, [[Methodius of Olympus]] rejected the pre-existence of the soul and the allegorical interpretation of Genesis, and in the process, was the first to describe the events of Adam's life as the "Fall".{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=48–61}}

Greek Fathers would come to emphasize the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam, human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in [[total depravity]], which is one understanding of original sin among the leaders of the [[Reformation]].{{sfn|Wallace|Rusk|2011|pp=255, 258}}{{sfn|Turner|2004|p=71}} During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by [[Gnosticism|Gnostics]], and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.{{sfn|Lohse|1966|p=104}}{{sfn|Wallace|Rusk|2011|p=258}} Thus Christian apologists such as Justin insisted that [[Last judgment|God's future judgment of humanity]] implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.{{sfn|McGiffert|1932|p=101}}{{sfn|Wallace|Rusk|2011|pp=258–259}}

===Latin Fathers before Augustine===
[[Tertullian]], perhaps the first to believe in hereditary transmission of sin, did so on the basis of the theory of [[traducianism]], the theory that each individual's soul was derived from the soul of their two parents, and therefore, because everyone is ultimately a descendant of Adam through sexual reproduction, the souls of humanity are partly derived from Adam's own soul—the only one directly created by God, and as a sinful soul, the derived souls of humanity, too, are sinful. [[Cyprian]], on the other hand, believed that individuals were born already guilty of sin, and he was the first to link his notion of original guilt with [[infant baptism]]. Cyprian writes that the infant is "born has not sinned at all, except that carnally born according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the first death from the first nativity."{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=65-66}} Another text to assert the connection between original sin and infant baptism was the [[Manichaeism|Manichaen]] ''Letter to Menoch'', although it is of disputed authenticity.{{sfn|Beduhn|Mirecki|2001|p=154}}

[[Ambrose]] accepted the idea of hereditary sin, also linking it, like Cyprian, to infant baptism, but as a shift from earlier proponents of a transmitted sin, he argued that Adam's sin was solely his own fault, in his attempt to attain equality with God, rather than the fault of the devil.{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=66–68}} One contemporary of Ambrose was [[Ambrosiaster]], the first to introduce a translation of Romans 5:12 that substituted the language of all being in death "because all sinned" to "in him all sinned".{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=69–70}} Augustine's primary formulation of original sin was based on this mistranslation of Romans 5:12. This mistranslation would act as the basis for Augustine's complete development of the doctrine of original sin, and Augustine would quote Ambrosiaster as the source.{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=69–70}} Some exegetes still justify the doctrine of original sin based on the wider context of Romans 5:12–21.{{sfn|Moo|1996|p=}}{{sfn|Morris|1988|p=}}

[[Hilary of Poitiers]] did not clearly articulate a concept of original sin, though anticipates the views of Augustine, as he declared that all humanity is implicated in Adam's downfall.{{sfn|Williams|2006|pp=649–667}}

===Augustine of Hippo===
[[File:Sandro botticelli, sant'agostino nello studio, 1480 circa, dall'ex-coro dei frati umiliati, 01.jpg|thumb|[[Augustine of Hippo]] (354-430) wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}}|336x336px]]On the precise nature of Adam's sin, Augustine taught that it was both an act of foolishness (''insipientia'') and of pride and disobedience to God of Adam and Eve. He thought it was a most subtle work to discern what came first: self-centeredness or failure in seeing truth, as he wrote to the Pelagian bishop [[Julian of Eclanum]].<ref>[https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Fathers-OR/PL.044.html&chunk.id=00001355 ''Contra Julianum'', Book 5, Chapter 4, Section 18.]</ref> The sin of Adam and Eve would not have taken place if Satan had not sown into their senses "the root of evil" (''radix mali'').<ref>[https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Fathers-OR/PL.044.html;chunk.id=00001235 ''Contra Julianum'', Book 1, Chapter 9, Section 42.]</ref>

The sin of Adam is transmitted by [[concupiscence]], or "hurtful desire",{{sfn|Nicholson|1842|p=118}} resulting in humanity becoming a {{lang|la|massa damnata}} (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. He believed that prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], Adam had both the freedom to sin and not to sin (''posse peccare, posse non peccare''), but humans have no freedom to choose not to sin (''non posse non peccare'') after Adam's Fall.{{sfn|Loke|2022|p=123}} Augustine found the original sin inexplicable given the understanding that Adam and Eve were "created with perfect natures" which would fail to explain how the evil desire arose in them in the first place.{{sfn|Loke|2022|p=63}} Augustine also identified male semen as the means by which original sin was made heritable, leaving only Jesus Christ, conceived without semen, free of the sin passed down from Adam through the sexual act.{{sfn|Stortz|2001|pp=93–94}} This sentiment was echoed as late as 1930 by Pope [[Pius XI]] in his {{lang|la|[[Casti connubii]]}}: "The natural generation of life has become the path of death by which original sin is communicated to the children."{{sfn|Obach|2008|p=43}}

====Concupiscence====
Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]], not a [[Psychology|psychological]] sense. Thomas Aquinas explained this by pointing out that the ''libido'' ("concupiscence"), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not a ''libido actualis'', i.e. sexual lust, but a ''libido habitualis'', i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature.<ref>[https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm#article4 ''Summa Theologiae I-II'', Question 82, Article 4.]</ref> Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not "a being" but a "bad quality", the [[privation of good]] or a wound.<ref>[https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105/npnf105.xvi.v.xxviii.html ''On Marriage and Concupiscence'', Book , Chapter 28], cf. ''Contra Julianum'', Book 6, Chapters 18-19; Book 2, Chapter 10; ''Contra Secundinum Manichaeum'', Chapter 15.</ref> He admitted that sexual concupiscence (''libido'') might have been present in the perfect human nature in [[paradise]], and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.<ref>[https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Fathers-OR/PL.044.html;chunk.id=00001335 ''Contra Julianum'', Book 4, Chapter 11, Section 57], cf. ''Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem imperfectum opus'', Book 2, Chapters 42, 45; Book 6, Chapter 22.</ref>{{sfn|Schmitt|1983|p=104}} In Augustine's view (termed "realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam that all humans inherit. Although earlier Christian authors taught the elements of physical death, moral weakness, and a sin propensity within original sin, Augustine was the first to add the concept of inherited guilt (''reatus'') from Adam whereby an infant was eternally damned at birth. Augustine held the traditional view that free will was weakened but not destroyed by original sin until he converted in 412 AD to the Stoic view that humanity had no free will except to sin as a result of his anti-Pelagian view of infant baptism.{{sfn|Wilson|2018|pp=16–18, 157–159, 269–271, 279–285}}

====Anti-Pelagianism====
Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to his understanding of [[Pelagianism]] that would insist that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, thus denying both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. According to this understanding, the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example, thus, original sin consists in ''imitation'' of Adam. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor (''propagation''). A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from their parents, who experience ''libido'' (or "concupiscence"). Augustine frequently cited Romans 5 to refute the [[Pelagianism|Pelagian]] theory of imitation.<blockquote>But observe more attentively what he says, that “through the offence of one, many are dead.” For why should it be on account of the sin of one, and not rather on account of their own sins, if this passage is to be understood of ''imitation'', and not of ''propagation?'' But mark what follows: “And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the grace is of many offences unto justification.” [Romans 5:16] Now let them tell us, where there is room in these words for ''imitation''. “By one,” says he, “to condemnation.” By one what except one sin? [...] That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation; whereas the apostle says: “Judgment from one offence to condemnation,” [Romans 5:16] and again a little after: “By the offence of one upon all persons to condemnation.” [Romans 5:18]<ref>[https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105/npnf105.x.iii.i.html ''A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants'', Book 1, Chapters 15 and 21.]</ref></blockquote>Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual concupiscence present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration. This was because, according to Augustine, sexual desire is only one—though the strongest—of many physical realizations of that spiritual libido.<ref>[https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102/npnf102.iv.XIV.16.html ''City of God'', Book 14, Chapter 16], cf.''De continentia'', Chapter 8; ''Contra Julianum'', Book 6, Chapter 19; Book 4, Chapter 14; ''De Trinitate'', Book 12, Chapter 9; ''De Genesi contra Manicheos'', Book 2, Chapter 9.</ref>{{sfn|Schmitt|1983|pp=97}} Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".<ref>[https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105/npnf105.xv.iv.xlv.html ''On Original Sin'', Chapter 45.]</ref> Augustine used the [[Cicero]]nian [[Stoicism|Stoic]] concept of passions to interpret Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequences of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul, they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the [[resurrection of the dead]].{{efn|name=De civitate Dei}}{{sfn|Brachtendorf|1997|p=307}}

====Pelagius' response====
{{main|Pelagianism}}
The theologian [[Pelagius]] reacted thoroughly negatively to Augustine's theory of original sin. Pelagius considered it an insult to God that humans could be born inherently sinful or biased towards sin, and Pelagius believed that the soul was created by God at conception, and therefore could not be imbued with sin as it was solely the product of God's creative agency. Adam did not bring about inherent sin, but he introduced death to the world. Furthermore, Pelagius argued, sin was spread through example rather than hereditary transmission. Pelagius advanced a further argument against the idea of the transmission of sin: since adults are baptized and cleansed of their sin, their children are not capable of inheriting a sin that the parents do not have to begin with.{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=73–89}}
[[File:B Escorial 18.jpg|thumb|Illuminated parchment, Spain, {{circa|950–955 AD}}, depicting the Fall of Man, cause of original sin|330x330px|left]]

=== Reaction of the Church to Augustine ===
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to [[Pelagianism]], arose rapidly.{{sfn|Wallace|Rusk|2011|pp=284–285}} After a long and bitter struggle several councils, especially the [[Second Council of Orange]] in 529, confirmed the general principles of Augustine's teaching within Western Christianity.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} However, while the Western Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as [[John Cassian]], who rejected Pelagius but believed that fallen man could still choose to follow God of his own free will, although it is God who guides his progress.{{sfn|González|1987|p=58}} Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with [[concupiscence]] in the psychological sense, but [[Anselm of Canterbury]] challenged this identification in the 11th century, defining original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by [[Peter Lombard]] and others,{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, most notably by [[Thomas Aquinas]]. Aquinas distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the [[Franciscans]], though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as [[Duns Scotus]] and [[William of Ockham]], eliminated the element of concupiscence and identified original sin with the loss of sanctifying grace.{{sfn|Cross|1966|pp=994-995}} Eastern Christian theology has questioned Western Christianity's ideas on original sin from the outset and does not promote the idea of inherited guilt.{{sfn|McGuckin|2010|p=}}

In ''[[Cur Deus Homo]]'', Anselm of Canterbury explained that after the original sin of Adam and Eve, the sacrifice of Christ's passion and death on the cross was necessary for the human race to be restored to the possibility of entering Paradise for eternal life. Indeed, a life of infinite duration required infinite merits of salvation that only the infinitely valuable blood shed by the Lord could purchase.{{sfn|International Theological Commission|1995}} [[Thomas Aquinas]] maintains "that Christ is the head of the Church, and that the grace that he possesses as head is passed on to all the members of the Church because of the organic conjunction that obtains within the Mystical Body." Quoting {{bibleverse|1 John|2:2}}, Aquinas declares that the passion of Christ satisfied superabundantly for the sins of the whole world. The death of Christ was necessary only as a result of God's free decision to redeem humankind in a suitable manner, showing forth both the justice and the mercy of God.{{sfn|International Theological Commission|1995|loc=18}}

===Protestant Reformation===
Both [[Martin Luther]] (1483–1546) and [[John Calvin]] (1509–1564) represent a radical Augustinian shift: equating concupiscence with original sin, maintaining that it destroyed free will and persisted after baptism.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=995}} Luther asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in the orthodox statement of [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] doctrine, the [[Augsburg Confession]] presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form.
{{blockquote|It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the [[Pelagianism|Pelagians]] and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.{{sfn|Tappert|1959|p=29}}}}

Calvin developed a [[systematic theology]] of Augustinian Protestantism with reference to [[Augustine of Hippo]]'s notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the [[Reformed Christianity|Reformed]] doctrine of "[[total depravity]]") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his [[Imputation of sin|sin by imputation]]. [[Redemption (religious)|Redemption]] by Jesus Christ is the only remedy. Calvin defined original sin in his ''[[Institutes of the Christian Religion]]'' as follows.
{{blockquote|Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin (Gal. 5:19); while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins.<ref>[https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes/institutes.iv.ii.html ''Institutes of the Christian Religion'', Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 8]</ref>}}

=== Council of Trent ===
[[File:Michelangelo temptation of adam and eve.png|left|thumb|[[Michelangelo]]'s painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the [[Sistine Chapel ceiling]]]]
The defining doctrinal statement of the [[Counter-Reformation]], the [[Council of Trent]] (1545–1563), while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, opposes Protestantism in stating that "whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam [...] although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them."<ref>[https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter I.]</ref> The Council also condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.{{sfn|EWTN|2017}}

In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, [[Pope Pius V]] went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas' distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the equating of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=995}} The ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' states, "Whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v)."{{sfn|Harent|1911}}

===Modern theologians===
[[Søren Kierkegaard]], [[Paul Tillich]] and [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] thought that the doctrine of original sin is not necessarily linked to some act of disobedience by the first human beings; rather, the Fall describes every human person's existential situation.{{sfn|Loke|2022|p=124}} [[Karl Barth]] rejected the concepts of original guilt and original corruption for being, as he thought, deterministic and undermining human responsibility; instead, he advanced, as noted by Loke, "an alternative conception of Original Sin (''Ursünde'') which rests upon the idea that God sees, addresses, and treats humanity as a unity on account of the disobedience that is universal."{{sfn|Loke|2022|p=124}} For Barth, Adam did not pass on sin as corruption. In response to Augustine's problem of the inexplicability of original sin, Loke responds that God is not the first cause of evil, rather created libertarian agents who freely choose evil are the first causes of evil.{{sfn|Loke|2022|p=69}}