Infant Baptism

HISTORY:
Infant baptism was a practice in the church, as I have read, which started after the death of the apostles but before the time of Augustine. Christians practiced it and didn't think much about it; it was the way things had been done; I am curious, though, to find out in further readings if there were any in this era who questioned it. I was recently taught in my class that no one till then had yet justified it by means of scripture. Augustine took this tradition of the church and gave it body when he explained original sin in a further, and more desperate, manner.

Once taking a stance that all can be spiritually regenerated even without personal consent through water baptism, it soon came time for him to explain why some, or many, of those who were baptized did not follow in any portion according to the faith. In this frame of mind the doctrine of predestination was conceived and given form by Augustine.

I am reading along in the writings of Augustine, and find them very thought provoking (link given at the bottom of post). Let me share just a small piece which shows his thinking as I have connected already the doctrine of original sin with infant baptism:

If original sin is a nullity, would it not follow, that not only grace withdraws men from many offences to justification, but judgment leads them to condemnation from many offences likewise? For assuredly grace does not condone many offences, without judgment in like manner having many offences to condemn. Else, if men are involved in condemnation because of one offence, on the ground that all the offences which are condemned were committed in imitation of that one offence; there is the same reason why men should also be regarded as withdrawn from one offence unto justification, inasmuch as all the offences which are remitted to the justified were committed in imitation of that one offence. But this most certainly was not the apostle's meaning, when he said: "The judgment, indeed, was from one offence unto condemnation, but the grace was from many offences unto justification." We on our side, indeed, can understand the apostle, and see that judgment is predicated of one offence unto condemnation entirely on the ground that, even if there were in men nothing but original sin, it would be sufficient for their condemnation. For however much heavier will be their condemnation who have added their own sins to the original offence (and it will be the more severe in individual cases, in proportion to the sins of individuals); still, even that sin alone which was originally derived unto men not only excludes from the kingdom of God, which infants are unable to enter (as they themselves allow), unless they have received the grace of Christ before they die, but also alienates from salvation and everlasting life, which cannot be anything else than the kingdom of God, to which fellowship with Christ alone introduces us. {1}

Here is another quote which, in my opinion, shows the difficulty he has in injecting his belief in original sin as a trespass in addition to personal ones:

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound." Romans 5:20 This addition to original sin men now made of their own wilfulness, not through Adam; but even this is done away and remedied by Christ, because "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin has reigned unto death" Romans 5:21 —even that sin which men have not derived from Adam, but have added of their own will—"even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life." Romans 5:21 There is, however, other righteousness apart from Christ, as there are other sins apart from Adam. Therefore, after saying, "As sin has reigned unto death," he did not add in the same clause "by one," or "by Adam," because he had already spoken of that sin which was abounding when the law entered, and which, of course, was not original sin, but the sin of man's own wilful commission. But after he has said: "Even so might grace also reign through righteousness unto eternal life," he at once adds, "through Jesus Christ our Lord;" Romans 5:21 because, while by the generation of the flesh only that sin is contracted which is original; yet by the regeneration of the Spirit there is effected the remission not of original sin only, but also of the sins of man's own voluntary and actual commission. {2}

ONE SOLUTION:
Of course, there are many who understand that spiritual regeneration is a washing of the inner man by the Spirit of God, and not something done with literal water. It is unfortunate, as someone who sees the scriptures explain this, to read a whole theological construct delineating who may enter heaven and who may persist to the end, come about from just one false construct.

IMPLICATIONS:
Do we need a belief in Augustinian predestination with a knowledge of infant baptism being ineffectual? Calvin resurrects this belief later on after the Reformation.



On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants. Augustine, {1}Book 1 ch. 15; {2}Book 1 ch. 20.

Original Sin

HISTORY:
Augustine was the first theologian to suggest that because of Adam, all inherit his guilt from which they need salvation.

Prior, in the latin father's writings, the explanations given for the inherited sin nature were "ontological" (philosophical ideas of inheritance) or else "biological" (Hilary of Poitiers suggested a chromosomal-type of inheritance of sin nature).

In the eastern father's writings, they explained Adam's sin as resulting in physical death and a weakened moral will. Gregory of Nyssa was the first to use the term "original sin."

Augustine was the first church father to connect inherited sin nature with individual sin. Not a single church father wrote of original sin being more than "culpac" -- the sinful nature. He used the word "reatus," meaning the legal punishment of a lawbreaker, 69 times in context of original sin in his famous arguments with Pelagius.

He proposed his theology out of David's confession of being "conceived in sin" in Psalm 50, and also from Romans 5:12 "So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned." In the class I took recently, it was explained that his scriptures were the first latin translation in the third century of the greek New Testament. In doing some background research I discovered a professor of the University of Oxford, whose focus is latin and intellectual history, summarizing Augustine's use of the old latin bible in the exact manner taught me in class:

Ambrosiaster, commenting on Romans 5:12, which ends, in the Authorized Version's translation of the Greek construction, '...for that all have sinned', used instead the Old Latin Bible, which read 'in quo omnes peccaverunt', 'in whom [i.e. Adam] all have sinned' (my italics). This reading, also preserved in the Vulgate, is nevertheless a mistranslation of the Greek eph' from epi, 'inasmuch, because'. What had been a statement connecting death and sin in a casually ambiguous fashion became the statement that all had sinned in Adam, the fulcrum text for those who wished to argue for the biological transmission of original sin ('traducianism'), or for the seminal presence of all mankind in Adam's loins. This did not mean, however, that pointing out the error disposed of the doctrine, as ethical convictions are based on deeper foundations than chance mistranslations. Augustine, for instance, would alter argue for the seminal identity of all mankind in Adam on the reasoning that while Adam was made from the dust, which is something different from flesh, all his progeny were made from flesh, and therefore all creation was in Adam. {1}

(For future note, I will bother to focus most my contribution of research on the charges which are most crucial in the material I am presenting. In the above case, I even bothered to select a source which showed itself fair in attitude to Augustine's effort.)

Augustine apparently did not always think of "original sin" in such a way. In his writings up to the year 395 A.D., before the conflict with Pelagius, he still wrote of his belief in free will, he still had not incorporated pagan fatalism to his view of sovereignty, nor "lumped sin" from Adam to all men. Pelagius was his contemporary, and Augustine devoted much effort to defend against his ideas, considered heretical. The Pelagians believed absolutely in free will so far to claim there was no further dependence (post-regeneration) upon God's empowerment. Here is a short quote of Pelagian thought on the matter of original sin and free will:

Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty... Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the gravity of our own nature as an objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing. {2}

ONE SOLUTION:
How can we righteously deserve punishment for Adam's sin? Adam doesn't make us eternally damned: all indeed depends on God, but not so that our free will is hindered.

"Culpac" means a tendency to sin, a weakness of the moral will on Adam's descendants. The ability to choose good is not annihilated, not destroyed... just weakened. Inherited sin doesn't remove us from God, only personal sins. We are responsible for our own sins, not our neighbors. Mankind did not lose free will just because of "original sin."

The early church fathers leading to Augustine all believed in "culpac" -- inherited sin nature. "Reatus" (legal punishment of a lawbreaker) was added to culpa only in the writings of Augustine. He speaks of this guilt for which we need regeneration from in his Pelagian writings as if the fallen human nature is the same as sin itself.

IMPLICATIONS:
In closing I want to end with some critical thinking of Augustine's idea of original sin:

In discussing the subject of original sin and the difference between the Biblical and Augustinian viewpoints, a person told me that if it wasn't for the Augustian version they would not have become a Christian. You see it's not possible for some people to "become Christians," as they say, if they have to admit that their guilt is their fault. Some are so "good" in their own eyes that the only way they can think they are guilty is that someone else sinned on their behalf, and thus they are reckoned guilty because of what someone else did, and not what they have been doing. Or, they recognize that they actually sin - but given "total depravity" - it wasn't their fault. And yet they're willing to accept the Augustinian version of "guilt" - a faultless guilt - and be freely forgiven of sins (which by their own account they hadn't actually been responsible for to begin with). {3}

I use this poorly presented quote above because the reasoning is relevant. I struggle with accepting my responsibility in sin in a healthy process. I have also spent many years conversing with a church who gives the impression to be even more out of touch with sin than I am; the Jehovah's Witnesses give a simple answer that Adam is to blame for nearly all quality of sin and corruption implying even at the individual level. There is very little sense I receive that a Savior is needed for personal sins.

For a more modern Augustinian-favoring perspective of original sin, visit Bible.org: Study and Exposition of Romans 5:12-21. Especially helpful is the summarizing paragraph.


{1} Milton and the Idea of the Fall. William Poole, 2005, Cambridge Press; pg. 23.

{2} The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers. B. R. Rees, The Boydell Press; pp. 53-54

{3} The Boston Christian Bible Study Resources

Augustine's effects

I want to do a small series of posts on the histo-theological legacy of Augustine, as I have been given a short lesson recently. I give the disclaimer, yes, this is indeed just another opinion. This is not my knowledge, not my study, but someone else's, presented for what I hope is my benefit. The charges themselves, even if incorrect or biased as most opinions are to some degree, are intriguing, and challenge me to both think and begin to research for myself what happened, what I believe, and why I do so. I hope that, as you read along lightly, you too may get some small benefit from shared interest in these topics.

To quote the warning given me many times in five years of discussion with those at My LDS Stuff (currently disbanded for reconstruction), "You Protestants don't even understand the history of your faith and why you believe it."

I am hoping that it's only been me giving such a poor example all this time!

Dear Saint Augustine:

Would you explain God's administration of the second gift (the first being regeneration) of grace: Perseverance?

For, by whatever holiness men may be distinguished, they are not yet equal to the angels of God; not yet, therefore, is the will of God done in them as it is in heaven. And if this be so, in that portion indeed in which we ask that men from unbelievers may become believers, it is not perseverance, but beginning, that seems to be asked for; but in that in which we ask that men may be made equal to the angels of God in doing God’s will,--where the saints pray for this, they are found to be praying for perseverance; since no one attains to that highest blessedness which is in the kingdom, unless he shall persevere unto the end in that holiness which he has received on earth. {1}

What does this gift enable us to do?

Now, moreover, when the saints say, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,” [Matt. vi. 13] what do they pray for but that they may persevere in holiness? For, assuredly, when that gift of God is granted to them,--which is sufficiently plainly shown to be God’s gift, since it is asked of Him,--that gift of God, then, being granted to them that they may not be led into temptation, none of the saints fails to keep his perseverance in holiness even to the end. For there is not any one who ceases to persevere in the Christian purpose unless he is first of all led into temptation. If, therefore, it be granted to him according to his prayer that he may not be led, certainly by the gift of God he persists in that sanctification which by the gift of God he has received. {2}

So, if we are not tempted then we have proof that we have received this second gift of grace to persevere to the end? Does everyone who prays for this gift, receive it? If there are some who do not receive it, what is the reason?

Therefore, of two infants, equally bound by original sin, why the one is taken and the other left; and of two wicked men of already mature years, why this one should be so called as to follow Him that calleth, while that one is either not called at all, or is not called in such a manner,--the judgments of God are unsearchable. But of two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. Yet to believers it ought to be a most certain fact that the former is of the predestinated, the latter is not. “For if they had been of us,” says one of the predestinated, who had drunk this secret from the breast of the Lord, “certainly they would have continued with us.” {3}

Are you suggesting that if anyone does not continue to persevere then they never received the second gift?

They were not of them, because they had not been “called according to the purpose;” they had not been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; they had not gained a lot in Him; they had not been predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things. For if they had been this, they would have been of them, and without doubt they would have continued with them. {4}

Can there be any assurance that anyone has received it? Are we waiting till we die to know the answer?

For we are speaking of that perseverance whereby one perseveres unto the end, and if this is given, one does persevere unto the end; but if one does not persevere unto the end, it is not given, which I have already sufficiently discussed above. Let not men say, then, that perseverance is given to any one to the end, except when the end itself has come, and he to whom it has been given has been found to have persevered unto the end. {5}

Dear Saint Augustine, you are telling me that when one is not continuing in holiness, God did not therefore grant the gift. Isn't He therefore worthy to be thought with criticism for not supplying according to the request?

But he who falls, falls by his own will, and he who stands, stands by God’s will. “For God is able to make him stand;” [Rom. xiv. 4] therefore he is not able to make himself stand, but God. Nevertheless, it is good not to be high-minded, but to fear. Moreover, it is in his own thought that every one either falls or stands. Now, as the apostle says, and as I have mentioned in my former treatise, “We are not sufficient to think anything of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God.” [2 Cor. iii. 5] Following whom also the blessed Ambrose ventures to say, “For our heart is not in our own power, nor are our thoughts.” And this everybody who is humbly and truly pious feels to be most true. {6}

If God has foreknown that they will be good, will they not be good, whatever be the depth of evil in which they are now engaged? And if He has foreknown them evil, will they not be evil, whatever goodness may now be discerned in them? There was a man in our monastery, who, when the brethren rebuked him for doing some things that ought not to be done, and for not doing some things that ought to be done, replied, “Whatever I may now be, I shall be such as God has foreknown that I shall be.” And this man certainly both said what was true, and was not profited by this truth for good, but so far made way in evil as to desert the society of the monastery, and become a dog returned to his vomit; and, nevertheless, it is uncertain what he is yet to become. For the sake of souls of this kind, then, is the truth which is spoken about God’s foreknowledge either to be denied or to be kept back,--at such times, for instance, when, if it is not spoken, other errors are incurred? {7}

A final question for the Saint: In view of such cases is it really best to resort to "denying the truth"?

Would it not be better to counter the interesting charges laid at your feet, that as only one voice you had disproportionate sway on centuries of subsequent theology. You:

1) redefined free will
2) abandoned the teachings of 300 years of the early church fathers
3) redefined original sin
4) altered God's grace to be irresistible



On the Gift of Perseverance, St. Augustine, A.D. 428. Footnotes made to numerical chapters of work as follows: {1} 6; {2} 9; {3} 21; {4} 21; {5} 10; {6} 19; {7} 38