WI: Not Fallen, But Stumbled?

Of late, I've been coming across how numerous 20th century theologians (some considerably earlier) have basically rejected St. Augustine's views on this that and the other. One of the things is his concept of the Trinity that basically, besides some additions by St. Thomas Aquinas and Richard of St-Victor, stood until the 20th century (for all intents and purposes. Since it's not the aim of the thread to debate the trinity I won't go further into this).

But another concept of St. Augustine's that has cast a very long shadow is his doctrine of Original Sin. That we are somehow all flawed because of Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit. In his doctrine, St. Augustine laments the loss of a "perfect" humanity that can only be restored through relationship with the Second Adam (Christ).

Now, until St. Augustine started flogging the sale of this, one of the doctrines about the Fall was that of St. Irenaeus. Now St. Irenaeus had a different concept. Namely that the Fall was not as catastrophic as what Augustine later proposed. In fact, St. Irenaeus suggested that man was created "immature", and the Fall was merely the stumblings of a child learning to walk. And, as we grow to maturity, we can respond to God's invitations to interact with him. According to this concept, while there is a loss, it is not a permanent one (as St. Augustine reasons - since the perfection can only be restored through Christ, according to him). When I asked a friend of mine, who's a church minister about this, he responded that the reason that the Church would never in a million years have accepted Irenaeus' idea over Augustine's is because that Irenaeus' seems like a more conciliatory approach (don't worry if you're bad, you're just learning) than Augustine's black-and-white (you're bad, Christ is the only hope for you). I came back and asked him, "so what were they doing before Augustine got round to it?" Understandably I got no answer.

So, what if St. Augustine's idea never gains currency? Instead St. Irenaeus's doctrine does (or rather holds)? The idea of Original Sin as propounded by St. Augustine is that we as "fallen" humanity are intrinsically bad because of some fault in our genetics. Would the Church develop differently (the Doctrine of Original Sin is a pretty rooted concept)? And would St. Augustine, without such a key doctrine to his name, be regarded differently? I can only think that the effects on humanity's development would be way different.
 

Marc

Donor
Western Christianity could have but didn't adopt the Orthodox understanding of Original Sin. It was, and to some extent still is, one of the major differences in dogma between them.

An extended quote, pardon:

...This view differs from the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of Original Sin in that man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin of Adam. According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine’s interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born deserving to go to hell, and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that derive from the Augustinian understanding of original sin are not a part of Orthodox belief.

The cultural consequences if they had would have been considerable...
 
Western Christianity could have but didn't adopt the Orthodox understanding of Original Sin. It was, and to some extent still is, one of the major differences in dogma between them.

An extended quote, pardon:

...This view differs from the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of Original Sin in that man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin of Adam. According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine’s interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born deserving to go to hell, and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that derive from the Augustinian understanding of original sin are not a part of Orthodox belief.

The cultural consequences if they had would have been considerable...

Thanks for that, I didn't know that the Orthodox understanding of Original Sin differed from the Catholic-Protestant one. It truly makes it interesting. I also forgot that my pet hate of predestination (another Augustinian hangover IIRC) would be affected by non-acceptance of St. Augustine's Original Sin.
 
One of Augustine's "opponents" in reguards to original sin was Pelagius, a british theologian. His views were basically in line with the eastern ones, but it seems most of his followers misinterpreted him, and he got excommunicated because of them
 
One of Augustine's "opponents" in reguards to original sin was Pelagius, a british theologian. His views were basically in line with the eastern ones, but it seems most of his followers misinterpreted him, and he got excommunicated because of them

Could we see a more prominent Pelagian movement (as Pelagius intended, not necessarily the misinterpretation by his adherents) in a scenario where St. Augustine's doctrine isn't the standard? Or would Pelagius have different views to St. Irenaeus' ideas in any case?
 
One of Augustine's "opponents" in reguards to original sin was Pelagius, a british theologian. His views were basically in line with the eastern ones, but it seems most of his followers misinterpreted him, and he got excommunicated because of them
Pelagius was read as arguing that good behaviour is sufficient to overcome the original sin, that is, that human nature is so inherently good that following its best istincts was enough to be saved. The Church saw little value in a doctrine that ultimately appeared to deny the whole point for the Church itself to exist.
Interestingly, the Augustinian doctrine may be construed, in its predestinationist interpretation, as not strictly needing a Church as well... And indeed those aspects of Augustinian thought were opposed often.
 
Pelagius was read as arguing that good behaviour is sufficient to overcome the original sin, that is, that human nature is so inherently good that following its best istincts was enough to be saved. The Church saw little value in a doctrine that ultimately appeared to deny the whole point for the Church itself to exist.
Interestingly, the Augustinian doctrine may be construed, in its predestinationist interpretation, as not strictly needing a Church as well... And indeed those aspects of Augustinian thought were opposed often.

Interesting. So in other words, both could sort of be declared as heresy? Or is it an either or approach?

However, before we go rattling too far down the predestination track, what might the refuting or non-acceptance of St. Augustine's doctrine of original sin mean for his other doctrines? Would the opposition to them be more widespread? Or would they be accepted as OTL?
 
Interesting. So in other words, both could sort of be declared as heresy? Or is it an either or approach?
Basically, at different times, both were, only Pelagianism more consistently so. This did impact very moderately the acceptance of other Augustinian doctrines, like ending up as heretic didn't destroy Tertullian 's repute.
It's hard to imagine the Western Christian tradition without a partly Augustinian theology, but it may be the case it's harder for him or parts of his views to gain ground in some circumstances.
 
It's hard to imagine the Western Christian tradition without a partly Augustinian theology, but it may be the case it's harder for him or parts of his views to gain ground in some circumstances.

That might not necessarily be a bad thing. Give some other people a chance to find a place in the sun :)
 

Md139115

Banned
What must be recalled about the Original Sin doctrine is that this is washed away in Baptism, which is usually done soon after birth in Catholicism and most Protestant denominations. In fact, in Catholicism, baptism is the only sacrament that can be performed by anyone instead of a priest, just so a doctor or midwife, upon delivering a baby that was clearly not going to survive, could baptize it immediately. Functionally then, original sin is really only a problem for those denominations that reject infant baptism.
 
What must be recalled about the Original Sin doctrine is that this is washed away in Baptism, which is usually done soon after birth in Catholicism and most Protestant denominations. In fact, in Catholicism, baptism is the only sacrament that can be performed by anyone instead of a priest, just so a doctor or midwife, upon delivering a baby that was clearly not going to survive, could baptize it immediately. Functionally then, original sin is really only a problem for those denominations that reject infant baptism.

And not even all of those.

Latter-day Saints do not baptise infants, but do it at age eight, which we call the age of accountability. However, we also believe (Second Article of Faith) "that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression".
 
And not even all of those.

Latter-day Saints do not baptise infants, but do it at age eight, which we call the age of accountability. However, we also believe (Second Article of Faith) "that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression".

From what I can make out from his Against Heresies this is basically similar to what Irenaeus is saying: through the Second Adam's obedience man is redeemed from the First Adam's disobedience, however, that does not mean that we have a license to just carry on sinning (St. Paul's question of whether we should carry on sinning so that the grace can increase springs to mind).
 
As a Baptist, we just straight up believe that babies don't go to Hell because they are too innocent, i.e. they haven't matured enough to knowingly sin. Of course, it raises questions about toddlers....
 
Of late, I've been coming across how numerous 20th century theologians (some considerably earlier) have basically rejected St. Augustine's views on this that and the other. One of the things is his concept of the Trinity that basically, besides some additions by St. Thomas Aquinas and Richard of St-Victor, stood until the 20th century (for all intents and purposes. Since it's not the aim of the thread to debate the trinity I won't go further into this).

But another concept of St. Augustine's that has cast a very long shadow is his doctrine of Original Sin. That we are somehow all flawed because of Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit. In his doctrine, St. Augustine laments the loss of a "perfect" humanity that can only be restored through relationship with the Second Adam (Christ).

Now, until St. Augustine started flogging the sale of this, one of the doctrines about the Fall was that of St. Irenaeus. Now St. Irenaeus had a different concept. Namely that the Fall was not as catastrophic as what Augustine later proposed. In fact, St. Irenaeus suggested that man was created "immature", and the Fall was merely the stumblings of a child learning to walk. And, as we grow to maturity, we can respond to God's invitations to interact with him. According to this concept, while there is a loss, it is not a permanent one (as St. Augustine reasons - since the perfection can only be restored through Christ, according to him). When I asked a friend of mine, who's a church minister about this, he responded that the reason that the Church would never in a million years have accepted Irenaeus' idea over Augustine's is because that Irenaeus' seems like a more conciliatory approach (don't worry if you're bad, you're just learning) than Augustine's black-and-white (you're bad, Christ is the only hope for you). I came back and asked him, "so what were they doing before Augustine got round to it?" Understandably I got no answer.

So, what if St. Augustine's idea never gains currency? Instead St. Irenaeus's doctrine does (or rather holds)? The idea of Original Sin as propounded by St. Augustine is that we as "fallen" humanity are intrinsically bad because of some fault in our genetics. Would the Church develop differently (the Doctrine of Original Sin is a pretty rooted concept)? And would St. Augustine, without such a key doctrine to his name, be regarded differently? I can only think that the effects on humanity's development would be way different.
Could potentially Christianity be more relativist without Augustine?
 
And not even all of those.

Latter-day Saints do not baptise infants, but do it at age eight, which we call the age of accountability. However, we also believe (Second Article of Faith) "that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression".
The Anabaptist similarly don't believe in infant baptism. Instead they argue that a person must choose to be baptised.
 
Top