Original sin (pre-Augustine)

[Herald]

Irenaeus (130-202 AD) pre-dated Augustine of Hippo by 150 years. Irenaeus introduced the doctrine of original sin before Augustine, although the term "original sin" would be developed later. Two quotes from Irenaeus from his compilation, "Against Heresies."

"In the first Adam we offended God, not fulfilling His commandment...to Him alone we are debtors, whose ordinance we transgressed in the beginning." Against Heresies 5, 16, 3.

"In Adam disobedient man was stricken."
Ibid. 5, 34, 2.

The point? Original sin was not an Augustinian invention. It existed in the early patristic age.

 

[Herald]

Tertullian (160 - 220 AD) wrote, "We have born the image of the earthy, through our participation in transgression, our fellowship in death, our expulsion from Paradise."

"...every soul is counted as being in Adam until it is re-counted as being in Christ, and remains unclean until it is recounted."
De Resurrectione Carnis Liber 49.

 

[Iconoclast]

Tertullian (160 - 220 AD) wrote, "We have born the image of the earthy, through our participation in transgression, our fellowship in death, our expulsion from Paradise."

"...every soul is counted as being in Adam until it is re-counted as being in Christ, and remains unclean until it is recounted."
De Resurrectione Carnis Liber 49.

Looks as if they read romans 5,and 1cor 15...as we do:thumbs::wavey:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Irenaeus (130-202 AD) pre-dated Augustine of Hippo by 150 years. Irenaeus introduced the doctrine of original sin before Augustine, although the term "original sin" would be developed later. Two quotes from Irenaeus from his compilation, "Against Heresies."

"In the first Adam we offended God, not fulfilling His commandment...to Him alone we are debtors, whose ordinance we transgressed in the beginning." Against Heresies 5, 16, 3.

"In Adam disobedient man was stricken."
Ibid. 5, 34, 2.

The point? Original sin was not an Augustinian invention. It existed in the early patristic age.

However, you do realize, do you not, that there was a difference between the East and West on how they viewed sin, and a significance difference it was.

 

[Herald]

However, you do realize, do you not, that there was a difference between the East and West on how they viewed sin, and a significance difference it was.

The doctrine of the early church was one of mixture and error. The fathers could be spot on about a doctrine like the Trinity, and then be advocating heresy over teachings such as the pre-existence of the human soul. The point being that just because we can trace quotes back to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries doesn't really mean much. Most doctrinal clarity has come after the Reformation.

 

[Winman]

The early church fathers believed very differently than Augustine.

Justin Martyr in his Apology to the Roman Senate, page 71, represents it as impious to deny the freedom of the will. He recognizes the fact that without freedom there could be no retribution, in a passage where he says— "If the human race have not the power by free choice to fly from the base and to choose for themselves the noble and the good, then are they guiltless of their own deeds however done. But that they can of free choice either walk uprightly or barely wrong, we show thus."

Origen, in a passage in his commentary on Romans chap. 3, in which he applies the term "law" used by Paul, to the moral law of the reason, and illustrates the waking up of the consciousness of law in developed minds, says, "Now they are under the law who are passing the period of life in which they already have the power of discerning moral good and evil. Surely God has given to man all those sensibilities and powers of voluntary action, which are requisite in order to strive successfully for virtue, and has moreover added the faculty of reason, whereby he may know what he ought to do and what avoid. These qualities, accordingly, God is found to have given in common to all men. But if man, having received these endowments, shall neglect to walk in the way of virtue—man to whom nothing has been wanting from God—then will he be found to be wanting himself in the use of those faculties which have been given him by God."]

Hence they know absolutely nothing of the dogma that man is born contaminated with a deadly original sin and is obnoxious to damnation by reason of his very nature; but on the contrary they represent new-born infants as pure, guiltless, and pleasing to God.**

source

http://www.revivaltheology.net/11_born_sin/historysin.html

 

[Herald]

The early church fathers believed very differently than Augustine.



source

http://www.revivaltheology.net/11_born_sin/historysin.html

Winman, no offense, but sourcing a website with an agenda is, well, sourcing a website with an agenda.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Winman, no offense, but sourcing a website with an agenda is, well, sourcing a website with an agenda.

ROFL! Thank you for pointing that out!

 

[Herald]

The apostolic and early church fathers are helpful to understand church history and practice. Beyond that we have to careful about extrapolating doctrine from their writings. Scripture is our rule and ruler. That's my reason for the OP. Some have accused those of holding to original sin as buying into a Roman Catholic view espoused by Augustine. I just showed that "his" view existed over 150 years earlier. As I alluded to earlier, we see the greatest doctrinal progress after the Reformation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The apostolic and early church fathers are helpful to understand church history and practice. Beyond that we have to careful about extrapolating doctrine from their writings. Scripture is our rule and ruler. That's my reason for the OP. Some have accused those of holding to original sin as buying into a Roman Catholic view espoused by Augustine. I just showed that "his" view existed over 150 years earlier. As I alluded to earlier, we see the greatest doctrinal progress after the Reformation.

With who...Luther??

 

[Herald]

With who...Luther??

Not one person. The Reformation focused the attention where it should of been, on the Bible. The Reformation was not monolithic. Luther played a part, but just a part.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Not one person. The Reformation focused the attention where it should of been, on the Bible. The Reformation was not monolithic. Luther played a part, but just a part.

I agree with the biblical focus...but not with all the Reformational wranglings. That took no focus on the Christ of the Bible...sorry to say

 

[Herald]

I agree with the biblical focus...but not with all the Reformational wranglings. That took no focus on the Christ of the Bible...sorry to say

The Reformation was just the crack of the starters gun. If you look at the body of theology that was produced in the 16th and 17th centuries, it is staggering. I wasn't referring just to the date the Reformation started (commonly seen as Luther's posting of his 95 theses), but the what occurred subsequent to the Reformation.

 

[Iconoclast]

Like the reformers were to rome, I think reformed baptists are to general baptists like the reformers were to the anabaptists. Look here on BB. We pull from the reformers,and they are opposed by many of the various strains.Even the founders in the SBC get resistance.

 

[Winman]

Winman, no offense, but sourcing a website with an agenda is, well, sourcing a website with an agenda.

The information is either true or not. That book was written over 150 years ago. It shows the belief system of the early church fathers. They did not believe in Original Sin as Augustine did.

The early church fathers believed in a physical depravity rather than a moral depravity. They believed because of the fall man was more prone to sin, but they believed men retained free will and could choose to obey God.

They did not believe babies were born guilty of sin, but believed all persons became guilty of sin when they committed personal sin.

You started the thread, that is what nearly ALL of the early church fathers without exception believed until Augustine came along.

 

[Herald]

The information is either true or not. That book was written over 150 years ago. It shows the belief system of the early church fathers. They did not believe in Original Sin as Augustine did.

The early church fathers believed in a physical depravity rather than a moral depravity. They believed because of the fall man was more prone to sin, but they believed men retained free will and could choose to obey God.

They did not believe babies were born guilty of sin, but believe all persons became guilty of sin when they committed personal sin.

You started the thread, that is what nearly ALL of the early church fathers without exception believed until Augustine came along.

And I shared with you quotes from Apostolic fathers who predated Augustine on the doctrine of original sin. Your source is either wrong or you read it wrong. I quoted from the Apostolic fathers themselves.

 

[Winman]

And I shared with you quotes from Apostolic fathers who predated Augustine on the doctrine of original sin. Your source is either wrong or you read it wrong. I quoted from the Apostolic fathers themselves.

Yes, and if you read that article in full you will see at least a dozen or more statements from the early church fathers that show they did not believe in Original Sin as Augustine did.

Those quotes you posted are misleading. As I told you before, the ECF believed in a physical depravity. They believed that men and all creation came under a corruption which caused man to be more prone to sin.

They DID NOT believe as Augustine did that Adam's sin passed on all men. They DID NOT believe babies were born dead in sin.

If you sincerely want the truth you will find this to be true. The ECF were absolutely NOT Calvinists by any stretch of the imagination and were far more Arminian (actually, very semi-Pelagian) in their beliefs.

That is historical fact whether you like it or not. It is not an agenda to tell people THE TRUTH.

 

[Iconoclast]

If you sincerely want the truth you will find this to be true. The ECF were absolutely NOT Calvinists by any stretch of the imagination and were far more Arminian (actually, very semi-Pelagian) in their beliefs.

The fact that many held errors as some you post does not change the biblical truth.
The ECF lead the way into Roman error....so what is gained by looking and reading their wrong ideas. Many believed truth then as now, and we just do not have many writings until later on with the printing press being invented. You are beating a dead horse.

 

[Winman]

The fact that many held errors as some you post does not change the biblical truth.
The ECF lead the way into Roman error....so what is gained by looking and reading their wrong ideas. Many believed truth then as now, and we just do not have many writings until later on with the printing press being invented. You are beating a dead horse.

I love the way you set yourself up as judge and jury as to what is correct, and what is error. :laugh:

Has it ever crossed your mind for even one second that it is POSSIBLE that it is YOU that is in error?

The ECF did not believe in Original Sin as Augustine taught whatsoever. That is an historical fact. When Augustine argued OS from Romans 5:12 MANY disagreed with his interpretation, especially the Eastern church which used (and understood) Greek texts. Augustine did not know Greek well and relied on a flawed Latin text that said "in whom" in Romans 5:12, which Augustine interpreted to mean Adam. The Greek speaking theologians disagreed and do to this day.

Simply insisting you are right all the time does not make it so. :laugh:

 

[Winman]

For those who are sincerely interested in what the early church fathers before Augustine believed, this is an excellent video. It is nearly an hour long, but very interesting. You will see many dozens of quotes from the early church fathers AND scholars who have studied this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhLF-llpFX0