www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Church too Augustinian?

I know that the Latin Church has always embraced the Augustinian ideas on Original Sin, conscience, war, regular sin, and almost every other aspect of Christian theology. Did the Latin Church go too far in this regard? Has the Latin Church ever officially defined a doctrine in a purely Augustinian parameter, leaving out an Eastern possibility? Are the ideas of Augustine and of the East contradictory? If so, how? I know he deliberately left himself "open to correction" especially when it comes to the Fathers of the Church, but has this been taken seriously by the West?

In a nutshell: What's the deal with Augustine and his influence, is it irreversible, and does it need to be reversed?

God Bless,
The member formerly known as Christ Teen

christeen-
How old are you anyway? I've hung out with lots of 'teens' who couldn't list the Sacraments, let alone know Augustine. Are you sure you're not a theologian in disguise?

Sam

LOL, I just turned 16. Please, no more compliments. Quite honestly my ego is about the size of North American already! That's one of the things I'm working on for Lent: instead of repeating the Jesus Prayer, I'm going to keep repeating, "Garrett! You're scum!" Harsh, but I need it!

But thanks for the compliments anyway!

-Logos Teen

Logos Teen:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

All good questions. The Latin Church, to my knowledge, has never officially adopted, as doctrine or dogma, Augustine's view of original sin, though that view has certainly influenced a number of dogmas (e.g., the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos).

His views on sin, grace, and predestination, have been softened, so to speak, by the less fatalistic ideas found in Thomist theology (which, of course, is not without problems of its own -- though I like to think of Thomas as an honorary Greek Father!)

The Latin Church has long been very sympathetic to the Augustinian understanding of the Trinity, with its emphasis on the unity of the Godhead.

I think the best way to answer your questions, however, is to read Augustine. Start with the Confessions, which, incidentally, I read for the first time when I was 16.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Teen-Logo

With all my personal failings on this Forum, at least I've kept my screen name consistent!

The CCC appears to have rejected Augustinianism outrightly on a number of topics, including Original Sin.

Let us remember that under Augustinian influence, many RC's believed that it was a venial sin for married people to participate in, well, you know what married people do sometimes . . .

(I'm NOT referring to sharing dish-washing responsibilities after dinner!)

And if you don't become a priest in the Latin Church, you may just find out one day!

Ultimately, it is a question of balance and the Western Church should not feel that the Eastern Fathers are not "theirs" as well.

The Western Church venerates St John of Damascus and St Maximus the Greek.

If it also believed what they taught about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the rift between East and West might not have occurred . . .

Alex

I agree with Alex. Augustine was brilliant in his own right but today I see much, much more reference to a more unified Catholic spirituality in the West. Referencs to the Eastern Fathers are showing up everywhere in Roman Catholic periodicals, prayer resources, etc. etc. and we are much, much the better for it.

My favorite saying attributed to Augustine is "seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe so that you may understand."

Khrystyna

Not entirely...
CCC
406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

Theophilos,

Thanks for the suggestion. I've been thinking about reading "Confessions", but have put if off because,

1) Someone said it was insufferably boring (though I take that with a grain of salt) and,
2) I am in the middle of two other Catholic books: "Spirit of Catholicism" and the CCC.

But I think my next two books will be "Confessions" and "Case for Christ" (non-Catholic book :rolleyes: )

Alex,

I guess St. Augustine forgot about the "Be fruitful and multiply" command!

Logos Teen

I'd like to share some points that I read in an essay entitled: Augustine's
Exposition of the Theological Implications for Infants of Holy Baptism's
Liturgy. This show the foundation of Augustine's understanding on "original sin". Though Orthodoxy criticizes Augustine as having a false view on "original sin" but I think Augustine has struck the point since the Eastern Fathers are silent on this issue (as can be read on point #6).

ruel
________________

1. The rite of infant baptism as practiced in the church before Augustine
has been appropriately called "a practice in search of a theology."
Although solid evidence exists for the practice of paedobaptism from the
time of Tertullian, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was
the custom from Apostolic times, nevertheless, to say that there was no
consensus of opinion concerning the theological rationale for the
sacramental rite would be an understatement. That the ritual of
paedobaptism was practiced universally from about 200 A.D. till the time of
Augustine is almost certain; what theological significance it had, and why
it was administered to babies remained open to theological development. In
response to errant Pelagian theology, Augustine developed a catholic
theology of infant baptism from the meaning and implications of the rite
itself in conjunction with his understanding of the scriptural data bearing
upon original sin. When Augustine linked baptism with transmitted original
sin, he was able to put theological flesh and bones on the what and why of
the rite of paedobaptism. Because infants contract the contagion of Adam's
guilt and pollution from their parents, they need the laver of regeneration
in order to inherit eternal life. By means of the sacrament of Holy
Baptism, infants receive the remission of the guilt of original sin and are
thereby saved from the eternal condemnation they justly deserved in view of
their share in the guilt of Adam's sin.

2. Prior to Augustine the theology of infant baptism can only be described
as inchoate. Like so many aspects of Patristic theology, the positive
development of the theology of paedobaptism awaited a suitable controversy.
With the exception of Tertullian's brief comments (De Baptismo, c. 200) and
Cyprian's controversy with Fidus (Epistle 64, c. A.D. 253 ), infant baptism
was simply not a theological issue in the pre-Augustine tradition.

3. The universally confessed creedal affirmation that Holy Baptism was
administered 'for the remission of sins' awaited theological unpacking.
The question is: do we find evidence in the pre-Augustinian church that the
theological rationale for the rite of infant baptism was the doctrine of
original sin? Augustine is convinced that the bulk of ecclesiastical
antiquity is on his side. In Contra Julian much of the book one is given
over to citing catholic witnesses (1.6-36); but he sometimes appears to be
milking the evidence for more than it's worth.

4. Origen, who believed the practice of infant baptism to be of Apostolic
origin, struggled with the meaning of the rite for children: "Infants are
baptized 'for the remission of sins.' Of which sins? Or at what time have
they sinned? Or how can there exist in infants that reason for washing,
unless in accordance with the idea that one is clean of filth, not even if
his life on earth has only been for one day? And because the filth of
birth is removed by the sacrament of Holy Baptism, for that reason, too,
infants are baptized: for "unless one is born again of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." (Homilies on the Gospel of
Luke, 14.5) Removing the "filth of birth" may refer to the guilt of
original sin contracted at birth, but, then again, it may not.

5. That Holy Baptism confers the forgiveness of sins goes back to the
Apostolic Scriptures (Mark 1:4; Acts 16:22; 1 Pet. 3:21; 2 Pet. 2:9); so it
shouldn't surprise us to see the two connected in the theology of the
Fathers of the second and third century. Tertullian discusses the four
gifts of Holy Baptism as the remission of sins, deliverance from death, new
life, and presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Against Marcion 1.28.2;
see also On Baptism, 10.5-6). Irenaeus theologizes that we are cleansed
from the leprosy of our sin at the laver of rebirth (Fragments, 33).
According to Clement of Alexanderia, "This work [of Holy Baptism] is
variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing:
washing by which we cleanse our sins; grace by which the penalties accruing
to transgressions are remitted. . .(The Instructor 1.6). Hippolytus
speaks of the filth of sins being removed and the reception of the Holy
Spirit at baptism (Exposition on Daniel 4.59.4). Cyprian says that the
nations who are baptized by the church, following the command of Christ,
have their past sins cleansed (Ep. 27.3). Even if, however, the
pre-Augustinian church recognized this clear connection between forgiveness
and Holy Baptism, it nevertheless did not draw out its implications for
infants.

6. No doubt a major contributing factor to this underdeveloped state of
the theology of infant baptism is the curious near silence of the
pre-Augustine church, especially the Eastern Fathers, on the question of
original sin. The pre-Augustine Fathers in their struggle against the
determinism of Gnosticism tended to minimize original sin and emphasize the
freedom of fallen man.

7. Given the strong connection between Holy Baptism and the forgiveness of
sins and the equally strong insistence that the guilt of sin is only
contracted through the misuse of human free will (something which infants
have not the ability to misuse!), infant baptism, although practiced, must
have remained a theological enigma to many. What was needed was a
controversy that would force fresh speculation on the relevant biblical
data, particularly on the question, "Why do infants need the sacrament of
the remission of sins applied to them before they are able to willfully
commit personal sins?"

8. The latter Western tradition (late in the fourth century), however,
appears to have moved very close to Augustine's position. Jerome assumes
throughout his letter to Paulinus of Nola that without the grace of Holy
Baptism even the children of believing parents cannot be saved (Ep.
85.2,5), but he does not explicitly connect Holy Baptism with the remission
of original sin. Neither does Jerome deny that 1 Cor. 7:14 refers to a
"holiness" not mediated by baptism (as Paulinus had wondered). Jerome does
not associate this "sacred status" with the reason why infants of believing
parents ought to be baptized, but neither does he deny it. The point is
that his theological grounding of infant baptism remains ambiguous.
Although some have understood Jerome in Epistle 107 to be charging infants
with the guilt of sin if they are not baptized, he is more likely referring
to the culpability of those parents who refuse to baptize their infants
(Ep. 107.6).

9. Augustine appeals to Cyprian as the origin of his doctrine of baptismal
grace. Augustine continually turns to Cyprian's Epistle 64, where Cyprian
reports on a council of African bishops who met to discuss the proper time
of infant baptism. A certain African bishop named Fidus argued that
Christian baptism must follow the analogy of circumcision and be
administered on the eighth day. In the process of answering Fidus, Cyprian
insists that no hindrance should be made to an earlier administration of
the "grace and mercy of God" to the infant, for even though the child is
free from personal sin, nevertheless, the newborn "being born after the
flesh according to Adam, has contracted the contagion of the ancient death
at his earliest birth [secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis
antiquae prima natiuitate contraxit]" (Ep. 64:2-3). Throughout the letter
Cyprian assumes that in being baptized the baby receives the remission of
sin, not his own, but that of Adam.

10. The evidence of Cyprian's theology leads Pelikan to assert: "The
achievement of a correlation between the practice of infant baptism and the
doctrine of Original Sin was first made visible in Cyprian." Cyprian,
therefore, seems to be a major source for Augustine's doctrine of original
sin. The doctrine is not fully articulated even in Cyprian, but Augustine
is able to tease out of Cyprian the rudiments of a theology of original sin
and Holy Baptism as the cure for it in infants.

11. To Augustine, the lex credendi implied in the lex orandi seemed
transparent enough. The fact that the sacrament of remission of sins has
been applied to infants necessarily implies that they have something to be
forgiven; and since they have committed no personal sin, it must be for the
guilt of original sin that they are washed in the laver of regeneration.

12. That the doctrine is "consonant" with the practice and theology of the
ancient church cannot be denied, but that original sin constituted the
explicit theological rationale for infant baptism cannot be proven. The
pre-Augustine church does not clearly articulate Augustine's reason for
baptizing babies to secure the forgiveness and cleansing of their inherited
original sin so as to deliver them from damnation to eternal life. It
remains "ingrafted" (insitus) in Holy baptism's liturgy. The meaning of
the rite of infant baptism remained implicit until Augustine unpacked its
theological significance. Even the meaning of the creedal article,
"baptism for the remission of sins," remained implicit with reference to
infants.

13. What, then, is God doing for the infant in Holy Baptism? What
precisely does God accompish for the infant? How does Augustine understand
Holy Baptism�s salvific efficacy? To understand this we must first come to
grips with Augustine�s view of original sin. Simply put, original sin
involves both the guilt of Adam�s first sin as well as the corruption of
human nature. Romans 5:14 places every man �in Adam� when he fell, and so
the essence of original sin consists in our co-responsibility for Adam�s
willful disobedience. �By the Evil will of that one man all sinned in him,
since all were that one man, from whom, therefore, they individually
derived original sin� (De nupt. et concup. 2.5.15). This is the guilt that
makes infants liable to judgment and which Baptism is designed to remove
(C. Jul. Pel. 6.49). Infants do not inherit either the sin or the
righteousness of parents, only the guilt of their first father, Adam (De
Gen. ad litt. 10.13.23).

14. It is not surprising that Augustine first crossed swords with nascent
"Pelagianism" over the meaning and significance of infant baptism. The
Pelagian credendi concerning the sinlessness of infants was in direct
contradiction to the lex orandi of the Catholic Church which faithfully
baptized infants "for the remission of sins." This basic ritual datum
dominates and controls Augustine's theologizing. If sinlessness
(impeccantia) truly characterizes infants, then why does the church pass
such innocent beings through the bath of regeneration? The meaning of Holy
Baptism is one, whether for infants or adults. The church's rites of
exorcism and baptism cannot be explained except on the supposition that
infants are defiled and guilty (De pecc. mer. 1.34.63; De nupt. et concup.
1.22). For Augustine the simple datum of an infant washed with water in
Holy Baptism was of monumental theological significance.

ruel

Dear bisantino,

Actually, Pelagius himself never taught that Grace wasn't necessary to lead a morally good life - others who were called "Pelagians" did.

St John Cassian and the Bishops of southern Gaul were among those who opposed Augustine's views on Grace, Original Sin and human nature.

Ultimately, what the East rejected, and what the West today agrees with, is that "Original Sin" is NOT inherited guilt for the personal sin of Adam.

The sin of someone else CANNOT be transmitted to others - as this would be a terrible injustice to begin with.

What is transmitted is the impact of Adam's sin on the human nature that we share with him - concupiscence, weakening of the will, death etc.

In no way are we born with a "sin" on our souls.

We are born into a sinful context with a human nature that is inclined toward sinfulness - save for exceptions like the Most Holy Mother of God, St John the Baptist and possibly some others.

The Protestant theology of predestination was ultimately a "logical" conclusion of this view (and certainly Augustine did not subscribe to it) where IF we can contract a sin without our will consenting to it (Adam's personal sin), then our will truly IS totally depraved and "out of the picture" for moral good.

Then we can ONLY be saved by faith through grace alone and this grace doesn't even remove our sins, but covers them up and Christian life is reduced to one of "penal servitude" as Evangelical author John Stott wrote.

Augustine is in no way guilty of Protestantism, however!

Alex

Dear elexie,

Baptism was always been administered to infants as well as adults for the "remission of sins."

The term "infant" is perhaps where the confusion lies.

When we think of it today, we think of a newly-born baby who is baptized - the usual way someone is baptized in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches now.

In those days, Christianity wasn't yet the norm and "infants" who could well walk to Church were baptized for "the remission of sins."

In addition, neither Scripture nor Tradition draws a fine line between the actual sins a person can knowingly and with full consent of the will commit - and the CONDITION OF SINFULNESS which is part and parcel of human nature.

To pray, as we do, "have mercy on me a sinner" in actuality means "heal my sinful nature" in the first instance - personal sins are assumed as symptoms of our basic nature that is inclined toward sinfulness, is weak etc.

To be born with Original Sin means that we are born bereft of the benefits and privileges that was Adam's, that we are born with a human nature that is sinful and inclined toward sin - and which is therefore in need of Grace, the Grace of the Sacraments of Initiation - and then the Grace that comes from our Life in Christ.

Alex

Dear Alex,
There is no confusion with the term "infant". The early Church Fathers and Christian writers refer and understood the term "infants" as babies. The following is intended not as irrefutable evidence, nor as the first line of an apologetic for infant baptism. It is certainly neither. The Scriptures themselves, especially the Scriptural teaching of sin, grace, and faith, form the clear basis for the practice. However these passages do present the clear practice of infant baptism in the ancient church of the second through the fourth centuries.

The Fathers

Irenaeus: For he came to save all by means of himself -- all, I say, who by him are born again to God -- infants, children, adolescents, young men, and old men. (Against Heresies II.22.4)

Hippolytus: And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family. And next they shall baptism the grown men; and last the women. (Apostolic Tradition 21.3-5)

Origen: I take this occasion to discuss something which our brothers often inquire about. Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. Of what kinds? Or when did they sin? But since "No one is exempt from stain," one removes the stain by the mystery of baptism. For this reason infants are baptized. For "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." (Homily on Luke 14:5).

[After quoting Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4] These verses may be adduced when it is asked why, since the baptism of the church is given for the remission of sins, baptism according to the practice of the church is given even to infants; since indeed if there is in infants nothing which ought to pertain to forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be superfluous. (Homily on Leviticus 8:3).

[After quoting Leviticus 12:8 and Psalm 51:5] For this also the church had a tradition from the apostles, to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were given knew that there is in all persons the natural stains of sin which must be washed away by the water and the Spirit. On account of these stains the body itself is called the body of sin. (Commentary on Romans 5:9)

Cyprian: In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man... Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision... we ought 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" (Letter 58 to Fidus).

Augustine: For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin. (Enchiridion; ch. 43)

The Inscriptions

Here the words of Everett Ferguson are appropriate: "Early Christian inscriptions, which in the largest numbers come from the environs of Rome, furnish some instances of child and infant baptism for the third century . . . Nearly all the early Christian inscriptions are epitaphs. A considerable number of these are for the graves of children. The vast majority give no evidence whether the child was baptized or not . . . Actually the word "baptism" is seldom used. The idea is expressed by "received grace," "made a believer" or "neophyte" (newly planted " used to mean "newly baptized") -- from Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries; Revised Edition (Abilene: ACU Press, 1984) .

To the sacred dead. Florentius made this monument to his worthy son Appronianus, who lived one year, nine months, and five days. Since he was dearly loved by his grandmother, and she saw that he was going to die, she asked from the church that he might depart from the world a believer. (ILCV I:1343, from the third century; edited by E. Diehl (second edition; Berlin, 1961))

Postumius Eutenion, a believer, who obtained holy grace the day before his birthday at a very late hour and died. He lived six years and was buried on the fifth of Ides of July on the day of Jupiter on which he was born. His soul is with the saints in peace. Felicissimus, Eutheria, and Festa his grandmother to their worthy son Postumius. (ILCV I:1524, from the early fourth century)

Sweet Tyche lived one year, ten months, fifteen days, Received [grace] on the eighth day before the Kalends. Gave up [her soul] on the same day. (Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres, Vol. I number 1531)

Irene who lived with her parents ten months and six days received [grace] seven days before the Ides of April and gave up [her soul] on the Ides of April. (ILCV I:1532)

To Proiecto, neophyte infant, who lived two years seven months. (ILCV I:1484)

As I have said, the practice of infant baptism is a practice in search of theology. Augustine made this lex credendi of the Church as his foundation of "Original Sin." The near silence of the Eastern Fathers on the topic of infant baptism and of original sin is for me "mysterious". Even in the GOARCH website where there is an article regarding infant baptism list the Western Fathers and one Eastern writer (Origen). My question is what do these Western Fathers and Origen referring to as "stain" and if baptism is for "remission of sins" then what sins of infants are forgiven when they are baptized.

Mapagpalang Mahal na Araw sa iyo!

ruel

Dear elexeie,

I would still argue that "sin" is something that is not limited to personal acts of sin, but also to our fallen human nature via Original Sin.

If one wants to get REALLY technical, if, as the Augustinian tradition would have it, babies are born with the one stain of Original Sin - then how is that "sins" in the plural to which your quotes refer?

Again, the remission of sins is a blanket phrase that refers to both the personal sins of adults and to the innate sinfulness, lack of Grace (but not totally) that a baby is born with due to Original Sin.

The idea that someone can inherit by biological transmission the "stain" of a sin (as opposed to its effects on our nature) committed by someone else is an innovation - and surely against all reason.

Magandang Omaga!

Mabuhay Anh Filipinas!!

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

"For as many of you as were baptized into [eis] Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3.27)

What does it mean to put on Christ? To become a new man, part of the new creation? "...if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation [kaine ktisis]; the old order has passed away, behold, the new has come!" (2 Cor. 5:17)

It seems to me -- as I believe it seemed to most of the Church Fathers, East and West -- that baptism is not primarily about washing away one's personal sins but about changing our human nature from one predisposed toward sinfulness (the "stain" of which the Blessed Origen speaks, the "contagion of the ancient death" noted by Cyprian) to a new one in which the potential for theosis is opened up. "Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator" (Col. 3.9-10).

Chrysostom on Gal 3.27: Why does he not say, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have been born of God?" � for this was what directly went to prove that they were sons; because he states it in a much more awful point of view: If Christ be the Son of God, and thou hast put on Him, thou who hast the Son within thee, and art fashioned after His pattern, hast been brought into one kindred and nature with Him.

Nyssa, Homily on the Baptism of Christ: The time, then, has come, and bears in its course the remembrance of holy mysteries, purifying man � mysteries which purge out from soul and body even that sin which is hard to cleanse away, and which bring us back to that fairness of our first estate which God, the best of artificers, impressed upon us. Therefore it is that you, the initiated people, are gathered together; and you bring also that people who have not made trial of them, leading, like good fathers, by careful guidance, the uninitiated to the perfect reception of the faith. I for my part rejoice over both � over you that are initiated, because you are enriched with a great gift: over you that are uninitiated, because you have a fair expectation of hope � remission of what is to be accounted for, release from bondage, close relation to God, free boldness of speech, and in place of servile subjection equality with the angels. For these things, and all that follow from them, the grace of Baptism secures and conveys to us.

Does this mean that infants or those killed in the womb, who die without receiving the mystery of baptism but who have likely never committed any sin, are condemned to Hell? What about the prophets and holy men of the Old Testament? Socrates? I hope and pray that that is not the case, and trust in God�s great mercy and justice.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Just to clarify: I am not suggesting in the above post that the Old Testament prophets and Socrates led sinless lives (though I believe Athanasius, in Against the Arians, does imply that Jeremiah and John the Baptizer never sinned); it was not my intention to equate them with sinless infants, born alive or dead.

What I meant to suggest is that treating the issue of baptism in a legalistic way ("if baptism, then permitted entry into the Kingdom of Heaven; if no baptism, then not permitted") leads to some odd conclusions. It is perhaps best, therefore, to take something like an apophatic approach to such questions/issues.

In Christ,
Theophilos, one who knows that he knows nothing (though sometimes I need to be reminded)