What is Sin?

[glfredrick]

Yes, you quoted Origen and by your own words his thinking was 'the standard view of the Church" during that time. I am amazed that you are not aware of where Origen came up with the idea that men are born in such a state where they have a need to have their sins forgiven.

Linwood Urban writes, "Origen is well known for his view that human souls preexist their embodiment, that they come into being at the dawn of creation, and that the story of the Fall in Genesis is an allegory of a precosmic fall of the angels" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1986], 139).

Urban goes on to note that Origen theorizes that the sinful condition of all men at birth is due to their sins which they commited preexistant to their embodiment. He quotes Origen saying, "It is plain that the souls concerned were guilty of previous sin" (Ibid.).

Origen's ideas closely resembles the philosophy then current within both Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism. And that matches what John Henry Newman uncovered in his detailed study which makes it plain that the early church adopted the philosophy of pagan religions and made it a part of their teaching:

"Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class" (Newman. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine; Chapter 8, Section 2, Part 5).

What Origen teaches is, according to you, a viable piece of information when considering the idea of "Original Sin" in the early church. Therefore his teaching proves that I am right that the idea of Original Sin came from pagan religions.

Also, according to what you said then Origen's ideas represented "the standard view of the Church" during that time!

Okay... time to just say it.

YOU IDIOT!

I am NOT arguing the veracity of Origen. I am NOT arguing that what he said was RIGHT doctrinally as compared to Scripture. I am NOT saying that I believe Origien and follow his teachings.

I AM saying that Origien is a VALID HISTORIAN of whom we can see what the church held as a belief during the time he lived.

And, again... YOU IDIOT.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Okay... time to just say it.

YOU IDIOT!

I do not blame you for being upset since you embarrassed yourself once again. But do you really want to show everyone that you are an immature Christian who reverts to name-calling when your ideas are shown to be absurd?

I am NOT arguing the veracity of Origen. I am NOT arguing that what he said was RIGHT doctrinally as compared to Scripture. I am NOT saying that I believe Origien and follow his teachings.

The question we are discussing is in regard to the question which you asked here:

Anyone know what one of the major (not the sole) motivation was for the church to early adopt infant baptism (which was pre-Augustine)?

I answered your question by saying this:

The early church adopted the practices of the pagan religions. That is why we see infant baptism in the early church.

You disagree, saying:

There is always someone out there who supposes that every Christian practice is derived from the Greeks, pagans, etc., but much of the time that is not the case. Admittedly, later in the life of the church -- after around 350AD or so, some Platonic thought did enter into the life of the church.

Then you get all upset when I prove that what I said is absolutely correct:

You quoted Origen and by your own words his thinking was 'the standard view of the Church" during that time. I am amazed that you are not aware of where Origen came up with the idea that men are born in such a state where they have a need to have their sins forgiven.

Linwood Urban writes, "Origen is well known for his view that human souls preexist their embodiment, that they come into being at the dawn of creation, and that the story of the Fall in Genesis is an allegory of a precosmic fall of the angels" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1986], 139).

Urban goes on to note that Origen theorizes that the sinful condition of all men at birth is due to their sins which they commited preexistant to their embodiment. He quotes Origen saying, "It is plain that the souls concerned were guilty of previous sin" (Ibid.).

Origen's ideas closely resembles the philosophy then current within both Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism.

Since you do not like the fact that your own source was teaching the philosophy of both Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism you just throw a little fit:

And, again... YOU IDIOT.

No one likes to be proven wrong but some people handle it better than others.

 

[DHK]

I did not! Do you not ever tire of making false accusations against those who do not agree with you? Here is exactly what he said and my post was in regard to this very thing:

There glfredrick is referring to Origen and my post was in regard to the teaching of Origen. So it is not true that I misrepresented him.

Since you and glfredrick seem to be hand and hand on this issue perhaps you will be willing to defend the ideas of Origen?

Linwood Urban writes, "Origen is well known for his view that human souls preexist their embodiment, that they come into being at the dawn of creation, and that the story of the Fall in Genesis is an allegory of a precosmic fall of the angels" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1986], 139).

Urban goes on to note that Origen theorizes that the sinful condition of all men at birth is due to their sins which they commited preexistant to their embodiment. He quotes Origen saying, "It is plain that the souls concerned were guilty of previous sin" (Ibid.).

Origen's ideas closely resembles the philosophy then current within both Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism.

Now I challenge you to quote me where I ever misrepresented what glfredrick said.

Yes, you misrepresented his entire post.
glfredrick gave about four (not one) but about four early references to the existence of infant baptism as an early heresy in Christendom. One of his references was Origen. So what if the man is a heretic. That doesn't matter. The reference is to history, that he mentions it.

Even if you discount Origen, you have all the other men that he mentioned. Why are you discounting that evidence as well? Is all his evidence wrong because you believe that Origen was a heretic. I agree, he was a heretic. But that point is moot, irrelevant. He talks about infant baptism, as do the others that he referenced. You are misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding his post.

I often quote from "Cardinal Hosius" a Roman Catholic, to establish the early existence of the Waldenses. Does the fact that he is a RCC taint the historical evidence that he states that Waldenses existed as far back as the time of the Apostles? I don't agree with RCC doctrine, but I accept historical evidence.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, you misrepresented his entire post.
glfredrick gave about four (not one) but about four early references to the existence of infant baptism as an early heresy in Christendom.

I told you EXACTLY what I was responded to in his post.

I also said the following to you:

Now I challenge you to quote me where I ever misrepresented what glfredrick said.

You quoted nothing but yet you still continue to make false accusations against me.

As a Moderator do you condone what glfredrick called me in his previous post? Is that kind of behavior approved by the Moderators of this forum?

Can we call others "Idiots" if they do not agree with what we say?

 

[The Biblicist]

Can we call others "Idiots" if they do not agree with what we say?

This is like the kettle calling the pot black:laugh::laugh:

 

[DHK]

I told you EXACTLY what I was responded to in his post.

Yes, you responded to what he said about Origen, and about Origen's beliefs, which is quite off topic, and could be considered derailing the thread. If you want to talk about the belief system of Origen why not start another thread. That is not the topic of this thread. You have missed the point of his mentioning Origen.

Neither did you respond to the others in his post? Why?
Again you missed the point of his post.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, you responded to what he said about Origen, and about Origen's beliefs, which is quite off topic, and could be considered derailing the thread.

The entire thrust of my comments was in regard to the following question asked by glfredrick:

"Anyone know what one of the major (not the sole) motivation was for the church to early adopt infant baptism (which was pre-Augustine)?"

I answered his question by saying this:

"The early church adopted the practices of the pagan religions. That is why we see infant baptism in the early church."

After that I used his own source (Origen) to prove my point:

Linwood Urban writes, "Origen is well known for his view that human souls preexist their embodiment, that they come into being at the dawn of creation, and that the story of the Fall in Genesis is an allegory of a precosmic fall of the angels" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1986], 139).

Urban goes on to note that Origen theorizes that the sinful condition of all men at birth is due to their sins which they commited preexistant to their embodiment. He quotes Origen saying, "It is plain that the souls concerned were guilty of previous sin" (Ibid.).

Origen's ideas closely resembles the philosophy then current within both Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism.

If anyone should be accused of derailing this thread it is glfredrick and not me. Now let us look at what you said earlier:

Yes, you misrepresented his entire post.

I said:

Now I challenge you to quote me where I ever misrepresented what glfredrick said.

You quoted nothing but yet you still continue to make false accusations against me.

As a Moderator do you condone what glfredrick called me in his previous post? Is that kind of behavior approved by the Moderators of this forum?

Can we call others "Idiots" if they do not agree with what we say?

Why do you refuse to answer?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Where was the condemnation of glf in bringing up Origen on this thread, to say nothing about his 'idiot' remark, twice no less?

 

[DHK]

The entire thrust of my comments was in regard to the following question asked by glfredrick:

"Anyone know what one of the major (not the sole) motivation was for the church to early adopt infant baptism (which was pre-Augustine)?"

I answered his question by saying this:

"The early church adopted the practices of the pagan religions. That is why we see infant baptism in the early church."

After that I used his own source (Origen) to prove my point:

Linwood Urban writes, "Origen is well known for his view that human souls preexist their embodiment, that they come into being at the dawn of creation, and that the story of the Fall in Genesis is an allegory of a precosmic fall of the angels" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1986], 139).

Urban goes on to note that Origen theorizes that the sinful condition of all men at birth is due to their sins which they commited preexistant to their embodiment. He quotes Origen saying, "It is plain that the souls concerned were guilty of previous sin" (Ibid.).

Origen's ideas closely resembles the philosophy then current within both Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism.

Even if his beliefs resembled witchcraft would that make a difference?
We are not debating his beliefs.
He brought up Origen, one of the ECF, because he wrote of infant baptism.
Infant Baptism was present in the early church, as early as the time of Origen, in spite of what Origen believed. That stands in stark contrast to your reference to the Spanish Conquest which happened centuries later.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

In a discussion of sin, I would never fault one or accuse one of derailing a thread for simply taking an honest look into the views of the early Christian fathers, ESPECIALLTY when their views are being piecemealed out by GLF to show they believed in something they did not. Augustinian original sin denies free will is involved in sin, something even Origen did not believe was true. He clearly held to free will and stated that nothing in nature forced man to sin. The Augustinian notion that all of humanity was simply a mass of sin was not the belief of the early church period.

It is also noteworthy to notice that Origen also believed we are, in this present world, able to conform the lives we live to that of Christ, and with His help live such lives in reality. Origen was a far cry from the necessitated notions and bondage of the will coupled with the lifestyles and testimonies of continuous sin so many, even today, present as that of the normal Christian walk.

 

[DHK]

In a discussion of sin, I would never fault one or accuse one of derailing a thread for simply taking an honest look into the views of the early Christian fathers, ESPECIALLTY when their views are being piecemealed out by GLF to show they believed in something they did not. Augustinian original sin denies free will is involved in sin, something even Origen did not believe was true. He clearly held to free will and stated that nothing in nature forced man to sin. The Augustinian notion that all of humanity was simply a mass of sin was not the belief of the early church period.

It is also noteworthy to notice that Origen also believed we are, in this present world, able to conform the lives we live to that of Christ, and with His help live such lives in reality. Origen was a far cry from the necessitated notions and bondage of the will coupled with the lifestyles and testimonies of continuous sin so many, even today, present as that of the normal Christian walk as I read about him.

Origen was a heretic, even by the RCC standards, we know that.
By some he is called the "Father of Arianism."
But so what! That is not the title of this thread.

Glf was making an historical reference to the fact that even people like Origen refer to infant baptism in his writings. That is the point, not what he believed.
Furthermore, Jerry only addresses what glf said about Origen, totally ignoring the other early ECF writings. Why is that? Why so stuck on Origen? There was more than just one reference given.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry to GLF: Please give your evidence that those in the early church baptized infants with water because they believed that infants were born with original sin.

HP: There was simply no such belief as to original sin as foisted upon the Church by Augustine. it was the commonly held belief that the corruption found in infants was due to physical corruption, not original sin as Augustine taught. In the book "the history of Christian doctrines by Louis Berkhof, the early church prior to Augustine clearly held beliefs far more consistent with Pelagian views than those set forth by Augustine. Almost without exception they believed in a free will, a water shed issue in the nature of sin. Personal responsibility lies on the side of free will, while necessity and license falls on the side of denying free will. When I say license I speak of the notion that sin is absolutely unavoidable, something all, including every believer, of necessity must do and that without exception. The imputation of guilt as a consequence of original sin was absolutely not held in the church as dogma prior to Augustine. Augustine is rightfully dubbed, the father of the doctrine of original sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

As I read GLF, he is trying to show that original sin was taught in the early church prior to Augustine, and has set forth the notion of baptism of infants by Origen as evidence they held that belief. Such is simply not the case.

 

[DHK]

As I read GLF, he is trying to show that original sin was taught in the early church prior to Augustine, and has set forth the notion of baptism of infants by Origen as evidence they held that belief. Such is simply not the case.

Your blind devotion to Augustine as the author of the doctrine of original sin is astounding. I did not know you were so faithful and consecrated to such a cause. Amazing!
GLF is quite right in his claims. His quote is quite clear.

Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

This is long before Augustine.
Shall I post this again for you, the part that makes it very clear:

"Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.

I trust you can understand that statement now.
If infants had to be baptized for the remissions of sins, it only goes to show that they had sin to begin with, hence original sin and sin nature--as the ECF believed and the Bible teaches.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

In the book, The History of Christian Doctrine, by Louis Berkhof, the author states that the GK fathers presented a rather confused dualism in their writings between grace and sin. He states that the Greek fathers showed a "manifest affinity with the later teachings of Pelagius rather than those of Augustine." He states that their view of sin was largely opposed to Gnosticism that emphasized the physical necessity of evil and the denial of free will. The Greek fathers stressed the physical corruption was propagated in the human race but "is not in and of itself sin and did not involve mankind in guilt."

Origen departed from the general view as did a couple of others. Athanasius and Chrysostom are said to have "scrupulously avoided" such notions as Origen stated on sin in infants. Still Origen was contradictory in his remarks, for it can be noted that he also taught that humans are not polluted by nature, and that rational creatures are free and capable to choose both good and evil.

It can be clearly established that any notions of sin in infants held by Origen was offset by his belief in the free will of man and that humans were not polluted by nature. Of a truth, no idea such as Augustine's notion of original sin was in any way dogma in the Church nor was it common in the theology of the early GK fathers by any stretch of the imagination nor did Origen attribute guilt in any way to infants from birth as Augustine in the formation of the dogma of original sin clearly did.

As the author notes, many if not all early Christian fathers believed in the depravity of the human nature, but associated it with depravity in the physical realm, not the moral realm as did Augustine. They did not, contrary to Augustine, attribute guilt to infants due to Adam's sin. Whatever some saw as 'sin' in infants carried no guilt, and in no way mirrored the Augustinian notion that guilt was imputed as believed by Augustine. There is a chasm fixed between the views of the early Church fathers prior to Augustine and the beliefs of Augustine himself.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Even if his beliefs resembled witchcraft would that make a difference?

You are missing the point. The entire thrust of my comments was in regard to the following question asked by glfredrick:

"Anyone know what one of the major (not the sole) motivation was for the church to early adopt infant baptism (which was pre-Augustine)?"

I answered his question by saying this:

"The early church adopted the practices of the pagan religions. That is why we see infant baptism in the early church."

After that I used his own source (Origen) to prove my point.

Of course glfredrick was trying to make the point that Original Sin was taught at the time of Origen. However, even if it was that does not mean that the Apostles taught the same thing.

The great weakness in his argument is that there is no proof from anyone before Origen that anything which resembles his ideas was being preached.

Linwood Urban writes, "There is really no explicit discussion of Original Sin among the very early Fathers" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1995], 137).

In fact, the testimony of the earliest church Fathers demonstrates that Original Sin was not taught in the very earlyy church, much less by the Apostles. Urban says that Justin Martyr "asserts that 'the whole human race will be found under a curse,' the curse is not inherited depravity, but physical death" (Ibid.).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here is one thing I have certainly learned on this list. All that use the word 'sin' do NOT use it in the same manner in the same sense. Some use the word 'sin' only when moral guilt is implied, and others use the word sin for forgetting to brush their teeth.

It was no different in the time of the early Christian fathers. Some viewed physical depravity as 'sin' 'in a sense,' yet they did NOT attribute guilt to it. Baptism of infants was a means they felt allowed the grace of God to help overcome that physical depravity in man. Augustine was the first Christian father to establish the dogma in the Church that made it manditory for all to attribute 'GUILT' to the depravity man was born with. THAT is the 'doctrine of original sin' which Augustine is indeed the father of, that was not the position of the Church prior to Augustine.

If we today could limit the 'sin' we are born with to the physical realm as did the ECF, I would be inclined to agree. I might still shy away from calling it 'sin' though, for the obvious reason of confusion with the Augustinian notion so prevalent today. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

As the author notes, many if not all early Christian fathers believed in the depravity of the human nature, but associated it with depravity in the physical realm, not the moral realm as did Augustine. They did not, contrary to Augustine, attribute guilt to infants due to Adam's sin.

Whatever some saw as 'sin' in infants carried no guilt, and in no way mirrored the Augustinian notion that guilt was imputed as believed by Augustine. There is a chasm fixed between the views of the early Church fathers prior to Augustine and the beliefs of Augustine himself.

You really expect me to believe that? It was worth a good laugh.
"They saw sin in infants but the sin carried no guilt."
Yeah, right.
Sin that carries no guilt. Who redefined sin for them? Was it you?
As you have just demonstrated the depravity of man existed long before Augustine, even if you try to rationalize it away.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

All I can do is to lead one to the water. :thumbsup:

"The History of Christian Ethics" by Forell and "The History of Christian Doctrines" by Louis Berkhof are both excellent resources on the teachings of the ECF.

 

[DHK]

You are missing the point. The entire thrust of my comments was in regard to the following question asked by glfredrick:

"Anyone know what one of the major (not the sole) motivation was for the church to early adopt infant baptism (which was pre-Augustine)?"

I answered his question by saying this:

"The early church adopted the practices of the pagan religions. That is why we see infant baptism in the early church."

After that I used his own source (Origen) to prove my point.

Of course glfredrick was trying to make the point that Original Sin was taught at the time of Origen. However, even if it was that does not mean that the Apostles taught the same thing.

The great weakness in his argument is that there is no proof from anyone before Origen that anything which resembles his ideas was being preached.

Linwood Urban writes, "There is really no explicit discussion of Original Sin among the very early Fathers" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1995], 137).

In fact, the testimony of the earliest church Fathers demonstrates that Original Sin was not taught in the very earlyy church, much less by the Apostles. Urban says that Justin Martyr "asserts that 'the whole human race will be found under a curse,' the curse is not inherited depravity, but physical death" (Ibid.).

Linwood Urban writes, "There is really no explicit discussion of Original Sin among the very early Fathers" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press,

Urban is wrong. Perhaps he didn't do his homework. The logic goes like this.
Baptism is important. (true)
Baptism saves. (false--early error called baptismal regeneration)
If baptism saves then infants should be baptized.
If baptism saves then baptism washes away sin.
If baptism washes away sins of infants then infants have sins to wash away. Else why baptize them??
Both baptismal regeneration and infant baptism were early errors in the Christianity. One doesn't have to search for the words "original sin" and "depravity of man." They only have to realize why infant baptism was necessary in the early centuries that it was practiced.