Rivetus on Original Sin
A Concluding Distinction
Welcome Back!
A few weeks ago, we further explored the doctrine of sin with the help of Antonius Walaeus, and we delved a bit into why all this theological retrieval matters. We’ll continue that latter train of thought sometime soon, but let’s pull the former train into the station now.
Human Essence v. Original Sin
I wrote a series of posts on original sin, and in one of those posts we distinguished between sin nature and human nature. Since then, I’ve discovered other voices within the Reformed world - other formulations on the doctrine of sin. What I’ve discovered is remarkable consistency, even though some formulations are better than others. Certainly, Francis Turretin’s formulation has been difficult to top in terms of breadth and precision. But as we come to the end of our ruminating upon sin and evil, I think we’ll find that Andreas Rivetus provides an especially helpful summation. His nuances are akin to the distinction between human nature and sin nature, but as we’ve seen, that distinction requires a lot of care and time in defining the simple words, “nature” and “natural.” It’s not as simple or straight-forward as you’d think, which is why I have linked this article so many times - we really do need to develop our definitions so that we can comfortably toggle back and forth between different uses of the words, “nature” and “natural.” But I digress.
The advantage that Rivetus gives us in his formulation is that his use of language is surprisingly accessible; and his statement is somehow both to-the-point, and also without any glaring loose-ends. After defining original sin in terms of it being a comprehensive corruption of the human being (what we would call “total depravity” today), Rivetus clarifies and distinguishes:
“23. However, it does not therefore follow that original sin is a substance, or the substantial image of the devil within mankind or that it is man’s very soul or heart. For sin is not a thing of essence that has its own existence, but it is concomitant, dwelling among us, easily ensnaring us (Rom. 7:20, 21; Heb. 12:1). It is something that inheres in human beings as an accident in the subject. Although these things [essence and sin] cannot be separated within corrupt man, yet we do assert that they should be distinguished. For God is the creator of all substances; yet sin neither was created by God, nor is it a created thing or an essence. Even Adam, after the fall into sin, kept the same essence of his own nature that he had previously, and he remained the same man. Our essence indeed does not change into another essence either by sin or by grace, even though it is spoiled by evil or made perfect by good.”1
I couldn’t have said it better myself! Praise to our triune God for the gift of good, biblical, precise theology. There’s gold and silver within the grand mountain range that is Reformed Scholasticism. Tolle Lege!
Andreas Rivetus in Synopsis of a Purer Theology, 2 vols., edited by William Den Boer & Riemer A. Faber, translated by Riemer A. Faber (Landrum, SC: Davenant Press, 2023), 149.