Was Augustine Roman Catholic? (Part 2)

(For the background to this post, see here.)

In my series on Augustine that Scott Windsor responded to, I gave some examples of Augustine's contradictions of Catholic belief. One example I cited was Augustine's view of infant salvation. Scott responded:

Now while clearly Mr. Engwer is trying to dig up inconsistencies (which he has yet to do), one has to question his support of St. Augustine - since, as I understand it, his denomination does not believe in infant baptism at all.

Was my series about whether Augustine was a member of my denomination? No, it wasn't. Have I ever suggested he was a member of my denomination? No. Was I citing Augustine on the issue of infant baptism? No.

As for "digging up inconsistencies", let me quote something the conservative priest and Roman Catholic apologist Peter Stravinskas wrote about Augustine in a conservative Catholic magazine (since Scott doesn't think Robert Eno is conservative enough):

"Despite Augustine's tremendous influence, several of his opinions never gained acceptability in the Church. Among them, we can list the following theories: that God would condemn unbaptized infants to hell, simply because of the inheritance of original sin; that God would justly condemn adults who had never had the chance to be presented with the Gospel, again, due solely to original sin's hold on them; that some people would suffer eternal damnation for no other reason than God's lack of interest in saving them! As we reflect on these Augustinian positions, we must recall the fact that just because someone is a saint or even a doctor of the Church does not make his entire body of teaching acceptable; only the Church's Magisterium can decide what is and is not consonant with Her understanding of the truth of Christ." (Envoy, September/October 1998)

You don't have to do much "digging" to find contradictions between Augustine and Roman Catholicism. I cited an example related to infant salvation, and the issue of infant salvation is the first example Stravinskas cites.

And here's Scott's irrelevant response on that particular issue:

Let us first state that even today a faithful Catholic could argue as St. Augustine did for infant baptism, CCC 1261 merely states that we can only entrust their souls to the mercy of God. It’s still God’s choice, salvation, damnation or the speculative “Limbo.”

Notice that Scott ignores what I cited from Augustine and what I cited from the Catechism Of The Catholic Church. Augustine tells us that the necessity of baptism for infant salvation is part of the Christian faith (On The Soul And Its Origin, 2:17). In contrast, Catholicism encourages people to "entrust them [unbaptized children] to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them" and "hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism" (Catechism Of The Catholic Church, 1261). Augustine didn't teach the "hope" that Catholicism is teaching. Scott hasn't reconciled the two positions. Instead, he just asserts that there's no contradiction without demonstrating that assertion.

I also cited Augustine's rejection of the immaculate conception of Mary. Scott responded by quoting only a portion of the passage I cited, then he wrote:

Note, the definition [of the immaculate conception by Pope Pius IX] does not say the Blessed Virgin was wholly freed from Original Sin, but was preserved from the STAIN of Original Sin. Jesus indeed was the only one who was born of a woman who was completely preserved from all sin.

Scott doesn't explain the alleged significance of a distinction between "freed from Original Sin" and "preserved from the STAIN of Original Sin". The same papal document Scott is citing refers to "the original innocence of the august Virgin", without any reference to a "stain". The Pope also wrote that Mary was "preserved from original sin by the grace of the Holy Spirit". Again, the "stain" qualifier that Scott is emphasizing isn't there. How could somebody have original sin without being stained? The Pope goes on to discuss how the Council of Trent refers to all men as having original sin, but doesn't include Mary. Thus, Mary is being exempted from the original sin that others have.

Yet, Augustine approvingly cites Ambrose's view that Jesus was the only human conceived without original sin:

"It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind....For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty." (On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin, 2:47)

Anybody born of sexual union is sinful. Jesus is "alone" in the "novelty" of His sinlessness. Is that view consistent with Roman Catholicism? No. As the Roman Catholic Marian scholar Michael O'Carroll put it, "[Augustine's] theology of original sin, which explained the transmission through concupiscence, inherent in conjugal relations, blocked his thinking." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 63)

Augustine also contradicted the Roman Catholic view elsewhere. The patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly explains:

"he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she [Mary] was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine's rejoinder was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects 'by the grace of rebirth'." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 497)

Speaking of Kelly, Scott made the following remarkable comments after I documented that Kelly refers to Augustine's view of Roman primacy as non-papal:

So, what Mr. Engwer and Armstrong have pointed out is J.N.D. Kelly is inconsistent in his assessment of St. Augustine. You know, I’m OK with that!

Scott makes no attempt to demonstrate that Kelly was inconsistent. He just asserts it. What's more likely is that Kelly realized that primacy can be defined in more than one way, so his reference to Augustine's belief in a Roman primacy wasn't meant to be a reference to a belief in a papacy. But Scott ignores such distinctions, equates primacy with a papacy, and claims without any supporting argument that Kelly was inconsistent.

I had cited a passage in which Augustine approvingly quotes the following anti-papal comments of Cyprian:

"For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein." (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 2:2)

Cyprian denies that there's any bishop with universal jurisdiction. Not only is that the most natural reading of Cyprian's words, but it's also the most natural reading of his context. He made his comments above in the context of opposing the Roman bishop Stephen during a dispute over baptismal doctrine. Stephen was the first Roman bishop in our extant records to claim something like papal authority. Cyprian was opposing Stephen's claim. Even Roman Catholic scholars have acknowledged that Cyprian held a non-papal view of church government. See here. And Augustine was expressing agreement with Cyprian's view.

Here's how Scott responded:

So St. Augustine, through his quote from Cyprian, demonstrates that while St. Peter’s see is definitely one of primacy - the one in that seat may not always walk uprightly and may need someone else, like a St. Paul, or even a Church council, to step in and make a correction. So, even the bishop with primacy is not above correction - THAT is the point of this part of St. Augustine’s On Baptism, Against the Donatists

Does Cyprian, who's quoted by Augustine, say that he's addressing whether a bishop has "walked uprightly" and can be corrected by somebody of lower authority? No. Rather, Cyprian says that he's addressing whether there's any bishop of bishops, one bishop who has jurisdiction over the others. He denies that there is such a bishop. Roman Catholicism claims that there is one. That's a contradiction.

In my series on Augustine, I pointed out that Augustine defined ecumenical councils differently than Catholicism does. Augustine didn't agree with Catholicism about which councils are and aren't ecumenical. Scott evades the issue by commenting:

I’m not going to get into the middle of this dispute about how St. Augustine counted councils, vs. Dave or Jason.

There isn't much that Scott does "get into the middle of". He ignores most of what I address in my series on Augustine.

Here's Scott explaining that he's going to ignore even more of what I wrote:

There’s a bit of a battle about the interpretation of a word (“correct”) with several references to St. Augustine’s On Baptism, Against the Donatists, and then some more non-primary source commentary from Eno. Rather than a line-by-line, rehashing of this previous argument, let me skip to Engwer’s concluding/summary statements

Yet, a little later he comments:

I must have missed something here - where did St. Augustine state that ecumenical councils are fallible?

Scott "missed" it because he just "skipped" it.

That's an accurate summary of most of his response to my series.

Charity for me, but not for thee!

A lot of people are up in arms at the moment about a paragraph in William Lane Craig’s answer to Question 193 “Overweening Ignorance.” Facebook, blogs, twitter and message boards are abuzz with Christians angrily attacking Craig with the charge that this paragraph shows he either does not hold to the doctrine of original sin or that he thinks it is not essential to Christianity.

http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/12/william-lane-craig-original-sin-and-original-guilt.html

i) How does Matt know that we are “angrily” attacking Craig?

ii) If we are angrily attacking Craig, does this mean that Matt is angrily defending Craig?

The conclusion we are supposed to draw is that Craig is denying the truth of these passages and views these as “optional.”

Where did I indicate that Craig was denying the truth of these passages? How does Matt derive that conclusion from what I wrote?

In “Hollywood Squares” Hays draws a ejusdem generis parallel between Craig’s paragraph and the writings of liberal scholars like Spong, Bultmann and The Archbishop of Canterbury.

I didn’t identify them as liberals. I find it shocking that Matt would angrily attack Craig by comparing him to a bunch of liberals. He should be more charitable.

Tightening the Noose

How do you stop an atheist's argument from drowning? Take your foot off its head!

Today, I don't think I'll do that. Instead I'll continue to press my foot down on the argument, submerge it, and watch it's lifeless body float away.

It all started with THIS POST, which prompted THIS RESPONSE, which generated yet ANOTHER RESPONSE.

At this juncture we have yet another response by Daniel Morgan. His latest response is a telling commentary on the state of the debate, and how he, at least sub-consciously, views it. It's to his latest that I now turn.

"This whole matter boils down to two important concepts, original sin and "election"."

Fine, and I take this as a tacit admission that all the other points I've been arguing for are counted in our favor.

"Original sin has been argued against by fellow Christians and by heretics for years."

Yes, I'm sadly aware of this. Of course this has absolutely ZERO logical weight in the argument at hand. Furthermore, the problem with these arguments is that these people cannot turn around and now claim the imputed righteousness of Christ on their behalf! If they want to deny Adam's imputed unrighteousness then they don't get the imputation of the second Adam either.

"It is a foundational doctrine, against which I will not argue that it can be supported from the present Christian Bible (just as slavery can be)."

Is this how Morgan handles the arguments I gave for original sin in my second post? The question is *does* the Bible support this.

Secondly, notice the red herring brought into the discussion (i.e., slavery).

"That said, I strongly disagree with the logical basis of such a doctrine."

Notice below that he will not at all show how the "logic" of original sin is faulty.

The logical basis is the idea of federal headship, or representation. But Daniel Morgan failed to bring this up. Therefore it appears that Daniel Morgan didn't know what the "logical basis" of the argument was. If he didn't know what the logical basis was, then why say he has a problem with said basis? If he did know what the basis was, then why not mention or critique the basis.

"Because you presuppose the Bible as true, and I do not, as has often been pointed out, this comes down to a matter of premises."

Notice the tacit admition of defeat. The original question was: "does the BIBLE teach original sin." Daniel previously had challenged me to prove this idea from the Bible. Morgan had originally postured this way:

"Of course, the way to resolve this is to explain how "original sin" is attached to election of a fetus, how it has some kind of intrinsic sin value which is justly met with the wrath of God. Personally, I see you descending into some pretty obscure interpretations to support your contention. The idea that fetuses and infants have some sort of willful sin is obvious nonsense. So, original sin is then all you have to go on, and aside from poetic references to David's "i was conceived in sin" I challenge you to substantiate your P2."

See, he challenged me to prove this doctrine from the Bible. At this point what he now is doing is saying, "well forget what the Bible says about it, let's just look at it from an ethical perspective and see if it holds (as we'll note he does below).

Originally the hub-bub started when I critiqued the view that we should shoot infants to get them to heaven. I argued from a biblical basis and showed how this argument cannot be given if biblical premises are assumed. Thus the argument attacks a straw man. The first counter was to try and show that I could not show the Bible supported my argument. Whence I did we don't here an "oh yeah, you're right, well, let's move on to something else; I have other criticisms to give." What we see is a sneaky and underhanded attempt to shift the ground of the debate.

Second, I don't see how this comes down to a matter of premises? I don't even know what that means. What it comes down to is exegesis, and Daniel Morgan is out gunned in this fight. That being the case, he tries to retreat to his outlaw hide out and fight on more familiar turf.

But the problem is that back in town he was shot. He is bleeding all the way to the hide out. He can try to go down in a blaze of glory, and the law can oblige, but we already know he's been shot and his last little outburst is an attempt to go down in the history books as at least having done something. This is all fine, as long as we know that the real fight happened back in town and the kid (as they call him) lost there. Let's now turn to his last hoorah.

"I will argue original sin is false on the basis of the following premises, while you presuppose the Bible is true [which entails a million necessary other premises and explanations and interpretations] and argue it is true:"

And let's remember all that originally mattered was if the Bible taught said doctrine. I already knew you disagreed with it. You didn't need to wait three posts to let us know that.

Let's now look at his argument (against original sin, remember):

1. Morality is based upon the thoughts, choices and actions belonging to a conscious agent
2. If agents are not conscious, they cannot be moral [at any particular moment in question - don't be silly and say that sleep negates this premise]
3. Fetuses are not conscious moral agents
C2. Therefore, fetuses cannot be held to any standard of morality.

This argument fails for many reasons:

i. I deny P1 and so does Christianity, thus it cannot be leveled against the doctrine of original sin since that doctrine cannot be taken out of the system which it's found in.

ii. This premise (1) leads to moral relativism.

iii. P1 allows no moral utterances to ever be the same. When Tom and Pete say that murder is wrong what's happening is that Tom thinks it's wrong because it's based on *his* thoughts and Pete thinks it's wrong because it's based on *his* thoughts.

iv. What is meant by "choices" here? Is Daniel not a physicalist who believes the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc determine our thoughts, choices, and actions? If so, then Daniel cannot believe is own P1 for what sense does it make to say that moral prescriptions are based on descriptive laws of physics and such.

v. P2 does not argue against original sin, and thus Daniel can't use this argument against original sin. P2 assumes actual transgressions committed by an agent and not the imputed guilt "inherited" by all of his. This comes nowhere close to dealing with the concept of representation and corporate solidarity taught in the Bible.

vi. P3 is unproven, and, originally, we were talking about all children before the age of accountability. Furthermore, what is "consciousness" on Daniel's materialist point of view? It may be that consciousness is a myth given materialism, and thus no one is a conscious moral agent on Daniel's view. So, his argument does not even follow.

vii. The worst here is the conclusion. Notice that he affirms the antecedent which would bring the conclusion "they cannot be moral." But notice that Daniel changes his conclusion to "they cannot be held to a moral standard." But this was not the consequent of his modus ponens! An egregious logical blunder.

viii. On a representationalist view all men can be held accountable to the moral standard that Adam was under.

ix. Thus since Daniel didn't even come close to touching the biblical doctrine of original sin, his argument totally fails. Furthermore, his conclusion goes beyond the premise, he uses vague and ambiguous terms and, prima facie, uses terms inconsistent with his materialism.

His second argument is more to the point:

1. Individual morality is based upon personal responsibility
2. For justice to occur, moral agents are held responsible for their own choices and not for the choices of others, nor actions over which they have no control
3. "Original sin" implies that individuals are responsible for the choices of other conscious agents
4. Therefore, "original sin" cannot be the basis of a just and logical moral philosophy

i. Note that p1 differs from p1 above. Which one is morality "based" on? Responsibility or thoughts, choices and actions.

ii. P2 is denied by the concept of federal headship. There's no *argument* against original sin here, just an assertion against it.

iii. P2 is demonstrably false. People, schools, and nations are constantly "held accountable" for the moral choices of others. For example, if the football team cheats then the whole school gets blacked-out. If my son smashes my neighbors window and kills her dog, I'm held responsible. These examples can be multiplied ad nauseum.

iv. P2 assumes a freedom that Daniel's materialism doesn't allow for. If we are all determined by the laws of physics how can we have "control" over those actions."

v. Adam did what we all would have done.

vi. Daniel cannot even account for morality.

vii. The conclusion goes beyond the premises.

viii. I deny that "original sin" is "the basis" for morality, so this is no argument against Christianity.

ix. Thus we're justified in rejecting this argument as well.

So much for going down in a blaze of glory, Daniel's firing blanks.

We can go on all day, and I am far from a philosopher, but I can dredge up far better arguments than mine from a text on ethics, I am sure.

Is this the point where I insert one of these: LOL?

The point remains crystal clear -- to hold a fetus morally accountable for something its great-great-great grandfather chose is as logical as a purple elephant circling the earth as a satellite. Your doctrine is intrinsically flawed.

Well,

i. You'd actually have to *show* how it's illogical.

ii. There is nothing "illogical" about a "purple elephant circling the earth as a satellite." It may be false, impossible (physically), etc., but it's not "illogical" since there is no law of logic violated in saying such a thing.

iii. Holding a person morally accountable for something the laws of physics determined he'd do is about as silly as believing that purple elephants orbit the earth as satellites.

iv. Your doctrine is intrinsically flawed.

v. Hint: I'm not scared by tough talk and mere assertions that we have all these supposed problems in our system. One could say that Triablogue is very Missourian about grand assertions, i.e., "show me."

The Reformed Orthodox were anti-Thomist in their epistemology

One of the main problems with the Thomist metaphysic is the Thomist epistemology.

Edward Feser begins his work “Scholastic Metaphysics” with what he calls “a basic philosophical truth, which is that metaphysics is prior to epistemology” (pg 27). But why is this the case? He doesn’t say. “Metaphysics” has been roughly defined as “what there is” or “what really exists” (Michael Rea, London UK and New York, NY: Routledge Publishing, 2014, pg 29). How can we understand metaphysics if we don’t know how we understand and precisely what it is that we are trying to understand?

John Frame, in his “History of Western Philosophy and Theology” (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2015) writes that “metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory (ethics) are not independent of one another and influence each other”, and that “one type of epistemology will lead to one kind of metaphysics, another to another kind”.

He also cites Aquinas (who cites Aristotle) from his early work “Being and Essence” to the effect that “a small error at the outset ends by being great” (pgs. 146, 154).

That is precisely the complaint against Aquinas’s work, which create in his own thinking, and later in Roman Catholicism, the enormous distances we see between those systems and biblical and historical Christianity (of which the Reformation is a part).

Original Sin and the Donum Superadditum

The introduction to "The Origin of Sin", Bavinck, Vol 3, pg 26, the editors write:

[In philosophy and other religions], outside of special revelation sin is either treated deistically in terms of human will alone or derived pantheistically from the very necessary nature of things.

Both views also found their way into Christianity. The British monk Pelagius rejected all notions of original sin and considered every person as having Adam's full moral choice of will. The fall did not happen at the beginning but is repeated in every human sin. Though the church rejected Pelagianism in its extreme form, Roman Catholicism maintained the notion of a less than completely fallen will, limiting the fall to the loss of the donum superadditum, which can only be restored by sacramental grace.

When the Reformation rejected Roman Catholic dualism, streams within Protestantism, notable rationalist groups such as the Socinians as well as the Remonstrants robbed robbed Christianity of its absolute character by dispensing with the need for grace in some measure. The image of God is regarded as the fully free will, which, like that of the pre-fall Adam, remains intact. While we are born with an inclination to sin, this inclination is not itself culpable; atonement is needed only for actual sin. Suffering is not necessarily linked to sin; it is simply part of our human condition.

Later on they discuss this donum superadditum in context:

The apostle Paul and after him Augustine were instructed by the contrasting model of Christ as the second Adam and placed the blame for universal and original sin at the feet of the first Adam. The only way to understand the crushing yoke of sin's miseries on all people is to believe that all share Adam's guilt. Augustine did not, however, adequately describe the transmission of guilt and pollution to Adam's posterity, and his understanding of concupiscence is too closely linked to spontaneous sexual desire. Roman Catholic scholastic theology modified this view to understand original sin as the loss of a superadded gift of grace (original righteousness) to which was added the active element of concupiscence. In Roman Catholic theology, the center of gravity shifted from concupiscence to loss of original righteousness. When concupiscence is not itself seen as sinful, it is hard to see what concrete effects still remain of original sin except for the imputation of Adam's trespass. The state of man after Adam's fall differs little from the pre-fallen Adam. We are left in only a state of "naked naturalness," not a state of depravity.

The Reformation opposed this Roman Catholic weakening of original sin. It is not just a loss of something but a total corruption of our nature. If we call this "concupiscence," we must define it in terms of the totality of human appetites. In this sense, contrary to Augustine, concupiscence is itself sin. …

The doctrine of original sin is one of the weightiest and most difficult subjects in Christian theology. Without it we cannot comprehend ourselves, and yet it remains finally an incomprehensible mystery to us. Adam's disobedience is the originating sin; that is the clear teaching of Scripture. How can that not be seen as arbitrary? Only by recognizing the organic unity and solidarity of the human race. This unity is first of all physical and organic, but, more importantly, also representative. Here too we must begin with Christ, who is our representative mediator in redemption. Physical unity and a realistic understanding of the transmission of sin is inadequate. For one thing, the strict parallel between Adam and Christ breaks down. How could Christ then, being truly human, Adam's son, be without sin? AMong human beings there is a moral solidarity that is greater than the physical. Reformed theology tries to explain this through the doctrine of the covenant--the covenant of works with Adam and the covenant of grace in Christ. The covenant of works and the covenant of grace are the forms by which the organism of humanity is maintained, also in a religious and ethical sense. This is God's ordinance (76-77).

Rabbit ears

Steve Hays posted the following quote from WLC and a few Bible verses here. Alan Kurschner reposted those citations, with attribution at the bottom. This morning, Rich tells me a bunch of people have been complaining who 1) either missed the attribution at the bottom or 2) were claiming WLC was being taken out of context. Now I will allow Steve or Alan to respond to the second assertion, however, I wanted to point out that this is the exact point I criticized WLC on in one of his debates with Shabir Ally, so this is not the first time WLC has made this statement. I have said repeatedly that WLC's theology is way too hobbled to support biblical Christian theism, which is why he has to produce a much smaller theism to defend. And this is one of the manifestations of starting with philosophy and then crafting a theology to match your philosophical opinions. ---JRW

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4362

In response to the complainants:

1. Not only did I quote WLC verbatim, but I gave the link. Anyone can follow the link back to the full text and read WLC in context.

2. What does it mean to quote someone out of context?

i) Quotes are frequently and necessarily selective. They excerpt a statement from the surrounding context. When NT writers quote the OT, they excerpt a small part of what was said.

ii) To quote someone out of context is to quote him in a misleading way. To misrepresent what he said by restricting the cited material in a way that creates a misimpression of what he meant.

However, if you read the quotation in the larger context, it doesn’t change the force of what I quoted. It adds some information which may having a bearing on Craig’s personal beliefs, but it doesn’t affect the point he was making.

Here is what I quoted:

As for your two moral objections, the first is an objection to the doctrine of original sin. But once more, that doctrine is not universally affirmed by Christians and is not essential to the Christian faith. So don’t let that be a stumbling block for you.

And here is the surrounding context:

As for your two moral objections, the first is an objection to the doctrine of original sin. But once more, that doctrine is not universally affirmed by Christians and is not essential to the Christian faith. So don’t let that be a stumbling block for you.What is essential to Christian faith is that all men are sinners and in need of God’s forgiveness and redemption. I’m sure you’d recognize your own moral shortcomings and failures, Luke. So don’t get hung up on Adam’s sin. It’s your own sin you need to deal with. (As for the doctrine, its viability will depend on the viability of imputation. We often know of cases where one person is held responsible for the actions of another because the one person represents the other or serves as a proxy acting on the other’s behalf. Maybe Adam was our representative before God.)

i) In the excerpt I cited, Craig denies that original sin is essential to the Christian faith. Does that excerpt convey a false impression of his actual position? In the surrounding context, does Craig say something additional to indicate that, my quotation notwithstanding, he does, in fact, regard original sin as essential to the Christian faith? No.

He makes a gesture at defending original sin. But that doesn’t change his classification of original sin as a nonessential doctrine.

ii) The larger problem is his hubristic presumption. He takes  upon himself the right to tell people what parts of the Bible they are obliged to believe, and what parts of the Bible they are free to disregard.

iii) If Craig himself didn’t think the Bible teaches original sin, then that would be different. That wouldn’t be telling someone that it’s okay to disbelieve Scripture. But the surrounding context indicates that Craig does, indeed, think Scripture teaches original sin (however he understands that teaching).

So even though, apparently, he thinks the Bible teaches original sin, he is telling a correspondent that you don’t have to believe what the Bible teaches about original sin.

When Craig does this he is literally playing God. Indeed, he is playing the role of a rival God. He is acting as if God lacks the wisdom or discretion to tell people what they need to believe.

So Craig comes along and says, “Sure, God may have said that, but you’re not bound to believe whatever God tells you. Leave it to me to clarify just how much or little of God’s word you’re obligated to believe.”

My quotation didn’t distort Craig’s point. And, in fact, the surrounding context makes his statement all the more damning.

He’s trying to usurp too much control over the conversion process, as if he has to protect people against God’s word. As if God’s word is toxic in large doses. And so he assumes the self-appointed role of giving people permission to disbelieve certain Biblical teachings which constitute a “stumbling block” to their conversion.

He makes a V-sign behind God’s head when God is speaking (the rabbit-ear gesture), and with a wink and a nod, assures the audience that it doesn’t have to take this or that divine statement too seriously.

Is evil a pseudoproblem?

Reppert is at it again:

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/11/calvinism-infant-damnation-and-problem.html

“The question has to do with whether we have an understanding of goodness that allows us to view suffering as a problem. Of course, infants are deemed innocent, then God doesn't have an moral motive to inflict suffering as well as a moral motive to alleviate suffering.”

i) If infants are deemed innocent, then why do they suffer? Reppert’s alternative seems to commit him to massive amounts of gratuitous suffering.

ii) If, according to Reppert, God has a moral motive to alleviate suffering, then why doesn’t God alleviate suffering? Hasn’t Reppert just proposed a defeater for belief in God?

“However, if federal theory is accepted, along with a Reformed understanding of God's moral motivation to punish sin, then even an infant is under the federal headship of Adam…”

i) In historical theology, Calvinism has no monopoly on original sin. Traditionally, even Arminians subscribe to original sin. So, if this is a defeater or undercutter for Calvinism, that applies with similar force to every other theological tradition that includes original sin. So I don’t know why Reppert singles out Calvinism in this respect.

ii) Needless to say, the locus classicus of original sin is Rom 5:12-21 (cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45-59).
Does Reppert even care what the Bible might teach on this topic? Or does he view the Bible in the same way that John Spong, Bart Ehrman, and the Jesus Seminar do?

“…and therefore God has a moral motivation to inflict suffering on the infant based on his justice, just as he has a moral motivation to alleviate suffering based on his mercy, and it's up for grabs whether he is just or merciful.”

God would have a moral justification in so doing. That’s not the same thing as a moral motivation. Absent redemption, God would have a moral justification in damning all sinners. This doesn’t mean he has a moral motivation in so doing. God has no moral motivation in damning the elect. Indeed, that’s not even in the cards.

“Exactly the same situation obtains with infant reprobation as adult reprobation, and the only difference is that in the case of adult reproations, we have people who are visibly sinful, while in the case of infant reprobations, there is an appearance of the innocence of the victims.”

Infant reprobation is not an article of faith in Calvinism. Since Scripture doesn’t have much to say one way or the other on the eternal fate of all who die before the age of discretion, this is an open question in Calvinism. We’re left to speculate. Major Reformed theologians range along a continuum on this issue.

“However, on the assumption that we can deserve punishment in virtue of our descent from Adam, this appearance is illusory, and there is no relevant difference between the two cases.”

i) Actual sin is an aggravating circumstance. So the two cases are not identical.

ii) Remember, too, that original sin is the source of actual sin.

“That is why I have been arguing that the Calvinistic claim with respect to the problem of evil is to eliminate it, and this is done by rendering it a pseudoproblem.”

Since Calvinism has both a doctrine of redemption, to make atonement for the sins of the elect, as well as a doctrine of everlasting punishment, to exact retribution on the elect, that hardly leaves me with the impression that evil is a pseudoproblem.

“What the Calvinist claims is that God has a moral reason to inflict suffering as well as to alleviate it, therefore the amount and distribution of suffering does not count against theism one iota.”

Whether or not that counts against theism depends, in part, on whether you view Christian faith as a mode of knowledge or else a defeasible opinion.

“If this all seems counterintuitive to you, well, (and it seems counterintuitive on top of counterintuitive on top of counterintuitive to me) that's just a sign of how depraved you are, and how much you want to avoid God's justice, and how much you need to submit your intuitions to God's Holy Word. Or so I'm being told.”

Well, that raises a number of issues:

i) It’s hard to tell the difference between Victor Reppert and Thomas Jefferson. Reppert seems to be reading from his very own, customized edition of the Jefferson Bible.

ii) Certainly people can raise intuitive objections to the Christian faith. But they’d presumably raise those objections as outsiders to the faith. At the time they were considering the pros and cons of the Christian faith.

We’d expect somebody who is already a Christian, especially a Christian philosopher, to have answered those questions before he took the final step. We’d expect him to get those questions out of the way, by answering them to his own satisfaction, before he crossed the line of becoming a Christian in the first place. Or, if he doesn’t have answers, at least he’s clear on which questions he needed to answer, and which questions he could leave unanswered.

That’s something you’d logically do before conversion, not afterwards. Reppert, however, seems to have one foot in the church and one foot in the world.

iii) Is original sin counterintuitive? Oftentimes, intuition is just a euphemism for social conditioning. For example, many traditional societies lay more emphasis on ascribed status than achieved status. If, for example, you’re the firstborn son of the chieftain, then that automatically confers on you a high social standing. You did nothing to merit that standing. It’s an external relation or birthright which you enjoy in virtue of your relationship with someone else–that man who happens to be your father. You automatically share his social status–for better or worse. Same thing with adoption.

I doubt that cultures like that would find original sin counterintuitive. If Reppert finds original sin counterintuitive, then that’s symptomatic of his provincial ethnocentrism.

iv) In addition, what he considers counterintuitive is actually paradoxical. Why do we even care about the fate of strangers–whether infants or adults? Unless they’re our own children, why would we even be bothered by specter of their damnation?

Well, that’s due to empathy or compassion. We have a capacity to identify with the plight of others. To project ourselves into the situation of individuals other than ourselves.

However, such sympathy involves a vicarious principle. A capacity to vicariously identify with the plight of another.

Yet the “intuitive” objection to original sin is that original sin is unjust precisely because it is a form of vicarious guilt. How can we be culpable for what someone else did?

But if you reject the vicarious principle of transitive guilt, then you also undercut the vicarious identification with the plight of the vicariously culpable which underwrote your objection to original sin in the first place. So, at best, this scenario generates conflicting intuitions.

v) I’d also note that in many traditional societies, empathy is by and for members of the in-group, not the out-group. For your kin or clansmen. Members of the other tribe are viewed with hostility. Their children are slaughtered with impunity.

Likewise, in our own time and place, many parents murder their very own infants with impunity (abortion, infanticide). It’s not just the bad old days of backward ignorance and primitive superstition.

So, once again, what do Reppert’s intuitions actually amount to? Who is he speaking for?

Or, to take another example–even in our own society, there’s a cultural expectation that friends will do favors for other friends. And this is extended to a friend of a friend. Although I may be your friend, I may not be your friend’s friend. Yet, if you ask me to do him a favor, I may do so out my friendship for you. He’d done nothing to merit that favor. He’s the vicarious beneficiary of our friendship.

Is that counterintuitive? Seems more like a cultural universal to me.

vi) In addition, should we think of people as discreet, self-contained units? Or does human identity have a corporate dimension? Is there something akin to a cumulative collective memory, albeit subliminal, which is passed down from one generation to the next? Something we both inherit and contribute to? Does that account for national character?

vii) When we speculate about infant damnation, we’re thinking of an infant qua infant. We see the infant as he is, not as he will be.

But suppose Hitler, as a baby, had a life-threatening illness. Suppose a Jewish physician, with the gift of second sight, was looking at that baby–not only as he appears to be, in the cradle, but with the benefit of foresight. At the very least, I think he’d be quite ambivalent about that cute little baby. If we knew the future of some babies, we’d be of two minds about their fate.

I don’t use this example to indicate what you or I should do in that situation. But just to indicate our own perspective is very shortsighted. We’re really not seeing the whole person, in relation to his life-history. His actual or counterfactual development–depending on whether he lives or dies.

Sin

Just how serious is it? And who has the correct understanding of its seriousness?

Rome’s view of sin is based on an allegorical interpretation of Luke 10:30, as I describe below, as well as a view of reality provided by the neoplatonist imposter Pseudo-Dionysius. The Reformers had a much more honestly biblical view of sin, especially as it offends the holiness of God:

The Sound of One Hand Clapping, a Clanging Cymbal

One of the things about being a Calvinist is that Calvinism attracts a lot of unpleasant people. I live in the South, and, to paraphrase some of our comedians, we have a lot of crazy people in the South. The real difference between us and the rest of the country is that we don't hide ours. We usually ask who they are.

Reformed churches, when they newly start, draw interesting crowds. I'm in a church about a year old. I understand that before I arrived, we had a regular visitor, an older woman, who stayed for several weeks. Suddenly, she decided to get a bunch of pamphlets and hand them out to the folks in the service after the message. They were rather nifty pamphlets apparently writtten to claim the pastor is an antinomian. Not only is this a lie; it clearly violates the New Testament on accusing an elder in the church, following a process for confrontation, and sowing division among the brethren. When confronted, she got angry and never returned. Upon investigation, the church learned that she has quite a reputation in the community. She frequents the Calvinist churches in the area and does the same thing. Basically, she sits quietly and is quite pleasant, but then she finds some point of disagreement then presses this into service. In a word, she is a factious woman.

It has come to my attention that "Charles" has taken to spamming both Triablogue, the Calvinist Gadfly, and Steve Camp's blog of late. At first, he decided to post material related to Bob Ross. He posted the same material at Steve's blog that was posted here, and, in a strange twist of fate, we received emails from Bob Ross shortly thereafter recapitualating his ongoing feud with James White, as if we are responsible to correct James I suppose.

James White makes himself very available to discuss the issues. His ministry has an address and a telephone number that are publicly displayed on the website. In addition, there is a link to his chat channel, proapologian, where I gather he interacts "live" regularly. Also folks can call the Dividing Line two days a week (although lately I've been having problems getting the live broadcast myself, but that might just be me). At any rate, unlike Berkof and Shedd, James is alive and kicking and wide open for discussion. It's rather easy to pull other websites into a feud between two persons who run yet another set of sites from the comments thread of the blogs. I realize that James makes his writing and his views public, as do we all, but it would seem the appropriate thing to do is either confront a person that is doing that much work to be available personally before hitting the comments sections of blogs and violating the rules of those blogs in the process. The alternative, as I pointed out to "Charles" is to create your own blog to air your dirty laundry there.

For that, I must now commend Charles, for he has taken my admonition to heart and done just that. For that we should thank him, for now we see his true colors.

Alan Kurschner: Mr. Ignorant

Alan Kurschner is a James White wannabe who
knows about as much theology as my cat knows New Testament Greek. Alan's recent
article, Dave HuntDeniesOriginal Sin, takes his ignorance to a new level.

Alan's proof that Dave Hunt has denied original sin is based on a statement Hunt made that babies do not go to hell. Hear me again: Dave Hunt said that dead babies do not go to hell. For Alan, to maintain that all babies go to heaven is equal to denying the doctrine of original sin.

Alan apparently believes at least some dead babies will go to hell and burn forever . What a lovely God he has.

The "babies in hell" view is preposterous. While John Calvin, and James White no doubt, would be proud of Alan, other Calvinists would be appalled. Al Mohler and Dan Akin wrote Why we Believe Young
Children Who Die Go to Heaven which Alan should take the time to read.

Mohler and Akin wrote,

in James 4:17, the Bible says, "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." The Bible is clear that we are all born with a sin nature as a result of being in Adam (Roman 5:12). This is what is called the doctrine of original sin. However, the Scriptures make a distinction between original sin and actual sins. While all are guilty of original sin, moral responsibility and understanding is necessary for our being accountable for actual sins (Deuteronomy 1:30; Isaiah 7:16). It is to the one who knows to do right and does not do it that sin is reckoned. Infants are incapable of such
decisions.

But this is precisely what Dave Hunt said! Alan quoted Hunt as saying, "The fact is that they [babies] did not sin. They died as babies. It wouldn’t be just to condemn to hell. What are they going to suffer for in hell? What deeds have they done?"

NewFlash! Alan's next article: Al Mohler Denies Original Sin!

Alan Kruschner: Color him ignorant.

Alan can answer for himself. However, if you'll notice Alan did not actually state his full view, so Charles is in no position to know exactly what Alan believes on this matter and what he disbelieves and his reasons. I believe Charles is in violation of the 9th commandment at the moment.

There is very certainly a difference between the way Hunt proceeds and the way that Drs. Mohler and Akin proceed in their argumentation, so, not they are not saying the same thing as Hunt.

Al Mohler and Daniel Akin argue thusly:

One biblical text is particularly helpful at this point. After the children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, God sentenced that generation to die in the wilderness after forty years of wandering. "Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your athers."(4) But this was not all. God specifically exempted young children and infants from this sentence, and even explained why He did so: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and
they shall possess it."(5) The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who "have no knowledge of good or evil" because of their age. These "little ones" would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.

We believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy. Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To lay this out for Charles, they make their argument not simply on the basis of the difference between original and actual sin, but on the work of Christ in the atonement. God sovereignly elects infants and applies the atonement to them. In effect, he regenerates them in order to remove original sin and bring them directly into heaven when they die in infancy.

Dave Hunt, on the other hand, denies monergistic regeneration and bases election on foreseen faith. Dave Hunt argues the Campbellite doctrine that denies babies are born with original sin. For him, they are not sinners until they reach the indeterminate "age of accountability." Ergo, when they die, they go to heaven because they are not guilty of sin until they sin. In other words, he uses an "exception clause" to "in Adam all die."

Color Charles Mr. Ignorant. These are two completely different arguments.

Part of the doctrine of original sin is the imputation of Adam's sin to the race. If the wages of sin is death and babies are innocent, then why do they die? Is Charles denying the imputation of Adam's sin to the whole race? These are questions that have answers for which he needs to account.

John Piper affirms Mohler and Akin's position.

However, in his monograph on Imputation, Counted Righteous In Christ, he writes on the teaching of Romans 5:12 that there are those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam:

Who are they? I am still inclined to think, against the most common scholarly opinion, that the group of people begging for an explanation, and providing the most relevant illustration for Paul's point, is infants. Infants died...

I know that many commentators object to the reference to children. It is indeed a very difficult complex connection of thoughts....Personal, individual sin cannot be the reason all died, because some died without transgressing a known law the way Adam did (v.14), and thus wihotu the ability to have their personal sins reckoned to them in the sense of which he is speaking (v.13). Therefore, they must have died because of the sin of Adam imputed to them. "All sinned" in 5:12b thus means that all sinned, through the one man's disobedience." (v.19).

From my perspective, I would say Dave Hunt has an even bigger problem, for it seems he should logically deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, since babies die and would have to do so from the imputation of Adam's sin, if they are innocent of personal sins themselves and not counted "guilty" until that ever illusive "age of accountability" that Arminans like to pull out. Is this also Charles' position?

I would argue that is it precisely the imputation of Adam's sin to infants who die in infancy that allows them to die, but this is also that which means that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to them in order to bring them into heaven with Him. We must remember that infants contain sin in "germ form." All that we are, they are in principle, but not yet in practice, yet not yet expressed. God, unlike man, sees the whole book, not just the first page. These children may be innocent babies to us, but to God they are much more. By imputing them guilty in Adam, He can then impute them righteous in Christ, and, in so doing, no man, including those who were taken as infants, will be able to glory in his innocence as a means to gain eternal life. They will have all, infants, included arrived by the grace of God alone. I suspect those who die in infancy will have the most marvelous testimonies of all in the next world, for they never had to know much of what we experience here. They got to be with the Lord from the start!

Charles acts as if all godly Calvinists believe in infant salvation. This is false.

From Boettner's Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:

Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God's "tender mercies are over all His works," and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin
themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles.

Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield. Concerning those who die in infancy, Dr. Warfield says: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no
act.

I'd add that Charles selection of articles by Ross on White name Shedd as an infidel on his views on this issue, so it's rather amusing to find Charles making this post in that light.

R. C. Sproul even calls the doctrines of infant salvation “speculative.” (Providence, Tape 10,Q&A). Sproul points out that some reformers believe that all babies who die are numbered among the elect, and other reformers believe that all babies of saved parents who die are numbered among the elect.

Charles calls Alan "ignorant," but it would seem he believes Hunt and Mohler/Akin to be arguing the same position. Clearly they are not doing this at all. Hunt proceeds from an Arminian premise akin to the Campbellite. Mohler, Akin, Piper and others proceed from a biblical recognition of the sinfulness of man and ground infant salvation in the grace of God and the righteousness of Christ through the cross alone. These are two completely different arguments.

Likewise, he pretends that Reformed theology is of a piece on this issue or that Scripture is absolutely clear. It most certainly is not; and even the best of our own exegetes admit to the speculative nature of the discussion. The position that all infants that die are elect is the majority view. However, a majority does not unanimity make.

Scripture itself is largely silent on this issue. It simply depends on how convinced one is about the exegetical arguments. I wonder, if David's, "I will go to him" is really meant to infer universal infant salvation for all infants who die in infancy. That's a rather grand, sentimental application of the text. God may well do this. I think there is a pretty good chance He does. On the other hand, I must admit (a) He would not be unjust not to do this; and (b) if He does, it is by way of Calvary, not some kind of "age of accountability" that mitigates against us being counted guilty in Adam.

Those that do not favor infant salvation generally proceed on the notion that no man, infant or adult, has a free pass to heaven. God would be perfectly just in condemning them to hell. To us, this seems quite harsh. On the other hand, in doing so, He may be punishing one who would flower into a Hitler on steroids if left to common grace working itself out. God sees us as a whole book, not page one or two. He sees us as we really are. Who's to say that the spirit of a child does not go to heaven with all the faculties of adulthood? This is a relation about which we know nothing. God does. From our perspective, an infant is dying. From His, a serial killer may be dying.

Samuel Hopkins writes:

“Many have supposed that none of mankind are capable of sin or moral agency before they can distinguish between right and wrong. But this wants proof which has never yet been produced. And it appears to be contrary to divine revelation. Persons may be moral agents and sin without knowing what the law of God is or of what nature their exercises are and while they have no consciousness.

If Charles finds this unjust, then we have to wonder why he would think it would be unjust to count an infant guilty of sin yet call Judas "the son of perdition" and predestined for it.

I think Steve Camp has a good point here:

...it seems in lack of biblical certainty, that it would be unloving to extend to someone "absolute assurance" where Scripture itself is not absolutely clear. What we can give unshakable assurance to, is that God is just and righteous desiring that none should perish; delighting not in the death of the wicked; and is at the same time both loving and holy, just and merciful, wrathful and full of grace. And in all that He does, He does with absolute perfection befitting His own righteous, holy character after the council of His will, to accomplish His purpose, for His own pleasure and for His glory alone (Cp, Ephesians 1:4-14). And it is there, that we must rest, find our resolve, and leave it with
Him.

So, Charles, we commend you for doing the right thing and taking your objections to the blogosphere. However, I would encourage you to give some thought before writing attack pieces that claim others are ignorant, when it doesn't seem you're quite as aware of what's being said as they. Otherwise, we hear the sound of one hand clapping, a resounding gong, and a clanging cymbal.

The transmission of original sin

1. Original sin has two sides: (i) the condemnation of Adam's sin and (ii) moral corruption/spiritual inability. (i) seems unfair. I've discussed that on multiple occasions. In this post I'd like to focus in (ii).

2. One question is whether the Bible teaches original sin. Considered in isolation, Gen 3 doesn't seem to teach original sin. However, that's followed by a drastic escalation in evil, leading up to the flood. And it continues after the flood. OT history is a record of pervasive depravity, both in pagan cultures as well as Israel. The extent and intensity of human evil is hard to explain unless there's a predisposition to evil.

In the NT, two classic passages are Rom 5:12-21 & 1 Cor 15:21-22. The text in 1 Cor 15 is about death, while the text in Rom 5 is about condemnation as well as death. 

Over and above that are Pauline texts about the moral and spiritual blindness, hardness, and deadness of the lost. About their captivity to raw destructive passions. Again, it's hard to explain that if humans are born moral blank slates. 

Finally, a theme of John's Gospel and 1 John is how the mission of Christ exposes the preexisting animus towards God and good. That dovetails with the Pauline picture.

3. A difficult issue in Christian theology is the transmission of original sin. In terms of guilt and condemnation for Adam's sin, that gave rise to debates over immediate and immediate imputation in Reformed theology. I think proponents of immediate imputation have the better of the argument. Again, that raises questions of fairness, but I've addressed that elsewhere.

4. But what about the transmission of moral corruption? What's the metaphysics or mechanics of original sin in that respect? That's something else theologians struggle with. Different models are proposed. 

Let's take a comparison: from what I've read, feral children are psychological inhuman. For normal psychological maturation to occur, humans require socialization during their formative years. There's a narrow window of opportunity that closes. If humans don't receive the necessary socialization during that period, no amount of remedial socialization will fix the deficit. The tragedy of feral children is the fact that they already passed the threshold where it's possible for them to develop a normal psychological makeup. No matter how much affection and attention they receive, it's too late for them to become psychologically human. It would take a miracle (which God may provide in the afterlife.)

Nothing was done to them that directly caused that deficient. They weren't physically, verbally, and psychologically abused. Rather, their condition is the result of severe neglect.  Humans aren't like Jem'Hadar babies programed to automatically mature psychologically as soon as they pop out of the incubation chambers. Our psychological makeup isn't purely internal and self-contained, waiting to unfold like clockwork. To be psychologically complete and mature requires something from the outside.  

By analogy, the transmission of original sin needn't be caused by some positive factor or determinant, but by the absence of some external factor that's necessary to complete our moral formation. Something lost in the Fall. 

Craig on the Fall

On the one hand:

...lies in your mistaken conviction that “the main core” of the Christian worldview is “the fall of man,” where the fall of man is apparently understood to imply, not only the doctrine of original sin, but also the origin of human disease and death as a result of human sinfulness. 

This is a horribly distorted view of Christianity. Not even the doctrine of original sin is essential to Christianity, as the example of Eastern Orthodoxy plainly shows, since Orthodoxy does not accept the Catholic doctrine of original sin and yet is one of the major branches of Christendom. You protest, “If there was no fall of man, what sin is there to save us from?” That’s easy to answer: every man’s own sin. You hardly need to believe in the doctrine of original sin in order to recognize that all men have sinned and are therefore in need of God’s forgiveness. Indeed, this is the message that is emphasized throughout the Bible, not the doctrine of original sin. 

Moreover, the idea that human physical death and disease is the result of sin or the fall, though championed by Young Earth Creationists, cannot be found in the biblical text and is widely rejected by many committed Christians (including me). 

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-a-darwinian-be-a-non-christian#ixzz3nHsWzif2

On the other hand:

21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor 15:21-22). 

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come…17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man… (Rom 5:12-13,17).

Some Later Sources On The Sinlessness Of Mary

I recently posted an article about the earliest Christians' belief that Mary was a sinner. That post addressed the New Testament and ante-Nicene eras. I now want to address sources who wrote from the fourth century onward.

Though belief in some sort of temporary or lifelong sinlessness of Mary appears in some sources from the fourth century and beyond, the older view discussed in my previous post continued to be advocated in many places. Even among those who viewed Mary as sinless for some period of her life or as unusually righteous, we need to interpret such passages in light of other passages in those same sources that refer to Mary as being cleansed by the Spirit, as committing a particular sin, etc. It seems that some of the later church fathers viewed Mary as sinless or as unusually righteous for some period of her life, but didn't view her as sinless from conception onward.

Below are several examples of sources from the fourth century onward denying that Mary was sinless in some sense. Many more examples could be cited.

Basil of Caesarea

Basil of Caesarea explains that the meaning of Luke 2:34-35 is clear: Mary sinned, and she needed to be restored after Jesus' resurrection, just as Peter was restored (Letter 260:6-9).

"About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation....By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, 'All ye shall be offended because of me.' Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man--to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even thou thyself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shalt be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. 'That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.' He indicates that after the offence at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shewn." (Letter 260:6, 260:9)

Hilary of Poitiers

"On the incident of Mary and the brothers waiting outside for Jesus [Matthew 12:46-50], H. [Hilary of Poitiers] proposes a novel exegesis: 'But since he came unto his own and his own did not receive him, in his mother and brothers the Synagogue and the Israelites are foreshadowed, refraining from entry and approach to him.'" (Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 171)

Cyril of Jerusalem

"For we tell some part of what is written concerning His loving-kindness to men, but how much He forgave the Angels we know not: for them also He forgives, since One alone is without sin, even Jesus who purgeth our sins....Immaculate and undefiled was His generation: for where the Holy Spirit breathes, there all pollution is taken away: undefiled from the Virgin was the incarnate generation of the Only-begotten....This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only-begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made. But I have no need of many words to teach thee that generation was without defilement or taint, for thou hast learned it." (Catechetical Lectures, 2:10, 12:32, 17:6)

John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom refers to Mary committing various sins:

"even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. 'For while He yet talked to the people,' it is said, 'one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?' [Matthew 12:46-48] And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, 'While He yet talked to the people;' as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?" (Homilies On Matthew, 44)

"For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?' [Matthew 12:48], because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion....And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul" (Homilies On John, 21)

Augustine

"he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she [Mary] was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine's rejoinder was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects 'by the grace of rebirth'." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 497)

Augustine wrote the following about Christ being the only post-Adamic human conceived without original sin. He approvingly quotes another church father, Ambrose. Notice that one of his quotes of Ambrose specifically mentions Mary, so it can't be argued that they didn't have Mary in mind at the time that they wrote. After quoting Ambrose, Augustine comments that Ambrose's view is a view consistent with "the catholic faith":

"And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before in our treatise On Grace, --adduce in evidence against the injurious talk of these persons that servant of God, the Archbishop Ambrose, whose faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers of the Latin Church; for grace is more especially honoured in doing away with original sin. In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: 'I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam,--so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ.' Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: 'We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Hence it is that Paul's flesh is 'a body of death;' even as he says himself, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Christ's flesh, however, has condemned sin, which He experienced not by being born, and which by dying He crucified, that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, where previously there was impurity through sin.' The same holy man also, in his Exposition Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: 'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.' Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: 'It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin's womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.' These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that 'we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.' What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith, since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him." (On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin, 2:47-48)

"The Augustinian view long continued to prevail; but at last Pelagius won the victory on this point in the Roman church." (Philip Schaff, section 81 here)

Cyril of Alexandria

"In this commentary, C. [Cyril of Alexandria] uses phrases about Mary which seem to continue the opinions of Origen (qv) and St. Basil (qv) on imperfection in her faith: 'In all likelihood, even the Lord's Mother was scandalised by the unexpected passion, and the intensely bitter death on the Cross...all but deprived her of right reason.' He tries to imagine the thoughts that passed through Mary's mind. Had Jesus been mistaken when he said he was the Son of Almighty God? Why was he crucified who said he was the life? Why did he who had brought Lazarus back to life not come down from the Cross? Then he recalls what had been written of the Lord's Mother: Simeon's sword, 'the sharp force of the Passion which could turn a woman's mind to strange thoughts.' The word woman is significant, for C. thought that the frailty of the female sex was a factor in what he then thought was collapse." (Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 113)

Leo the Great

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff counted seven different Roman bishops who denied the sinlessness of Mary (The Creeds Of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], Vol. I, p. 123). Leo I, a Roman bishop of the fifth century, taught that sin is transmitted by means of sexual intercourse, thus suggesting that Mary was conceived in original sin:

"And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one [Mary] received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred." (Sermon 22:3)

Elsewhere, Leo refers to Jesus being the only one conceived without sin. He even refers to Christ's stock, a reference to Mary, being corrupt:

"For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock." (Sermon 24:3)

And elsewhere:

"And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succour the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, 'Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?'" (Sermon 28:3)

The unclean seed would include Mary. And he refers to there being one from Adam who is sinless.

Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll comments that Leo viewed sin as being communicated by means of sexual intercourse (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 217).

Gregory the Great

"On Mt 12:48-50, [Gregory the Great] thinks that Mary momentarily represented the Synagogue, which Christ no longer recognized." (ibid., p. 159)

Innocent III

Even as late as the second millennium we see the sinlessness of Mary rejected by the Roman bishop Innocent III and other Western sources. O'Carroll cites the Pope saying that Mary was "begotten in guilt", that she needed "cleansing of the flesh from the root of sin" (ibid., p. 185).