1. There's multiple disconnects today between many present-day affirmers of original sin and the historic affirmers of original sin.
2. The historic affirmers of original sin generally believed the default fate of deceased infants is damnation (with varying degrees of harshness and punishment) with the exception of views like limbo being affirmed by some in the middle ages. In contrast to this, many present-day affirmers actually believe the default fate for all or at least some deceased infants is a positive one.
3. Many early Christians prior to the 5th century articulated a positive fate for deceased infants and didn't affirm the distinctions of original sin (perpetually inherited/imputed Adamic guilt). Instead they affirmed something more in line with ancestral sin. This corroborates with our conclusion that original sin does entail infant damnation.
4. Historically, among those who affirmed original sin, the only prescribed remedy to undo the default fate of damnation for deceased infants was water baptism. Present-day affirmers of original sin who don't affirm infant baptism (primarily Reformed/Calvinistic Baptists) are disconnected with the historical entailments of their own anthropology and doctrines concerning the fall.
5. One of our objectives in this article is for those who affirm inherited/imputed Adamic guilt but deny either one or both of the causes/warrants it brings; for them to instead change their mind and affirm our view of ancestral sin because our view doesn't in and of itself entail infant damnation or an infant baptism which saves from this damnation.
Needless to say, this article isn't targeted at any affirmers of original sin who do affirm and agree with the historical views related to original sin. This article is aimed at those who want to affirm the premise of original sin but dismiss the historical conclusion of original sin as well as the proposed remedy for it.
Historically, the three primary components of original sin were 1. Adamic guilt for all humans as one of the consequences of the fall. 2. Infant damnation as a result of Adamic guilt. 3. Infant baptism as a remedy for infant damnation. The above graphic shows how each of these three components play off of and influence one another.
“In any event the practice of infant baptism for the remission of sins presupposes that infants arrive polluted by sin; since they have committed no actual sin, remission must be for the guilt attaching to a fault in their nature. Therefore if babies die unbaptized they are damned, even though it will be a ‘very mild’ form of damnation.” - Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, p. 232
As Chadwick points out, this whole system builds off of the original premise of perpetually inherited/imputed Adamic guilt for all humans from birth. There are many today who affirm the premise but deny either one or both of the components that follow from it.
1. The Shepherd of Hermas (100 AD - 160 AD)
2. Athenagoras of Athens (133 AD - 190 AD)
3. Tertullian of Carthage (155 AD - 220 AD)
4. Origen of Alexandria (185 AD - 253 AD)
5. Ephrem the Syrian (306 AD - 373 AD)
6. Ambrosiaster (366 AD - 384 AD)
7. Gregory of Nazianzus (329 AD - 390 AD)
8. Gregory of Nyssa (335 AD - 395 AD)
9. John Chrysostom (347 AD - 407 AD)
We have provided citations for each of these writers on this issue in our article here. In our observation, there seems to be a very strong correlation between denying inherited Adamic guilt and denying infant damnation. If an early writer denied the former they seemed to deny the latter.
1. Gregory of Nazianzus (329 AD - 390 AD)
2. John Chrysostom (347 AD - 407 AD)
3. Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 AD - 428 AD)
“Let there be then no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Christ’s baptism; for none is promised in that Holy Scripture which is to be preferred to all human authority and opinion." - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 33
“What do we understand by the darkness but sin? And whatever else it may embrace in its meaning, at any rate he who believes not in Christ will “abide in darkness,”—which, of course, is a penal state, not, as the darkness of the night, necessary for the refreshment of living beings. So that infants, unless they pass into the number of believers through the sacrament which was divinely instituted for this purpose, will undoubtedly remain in this darkness.” - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 35
“For only the little ones who do not yet have their own actions, whether good ones or bad ones, will be condemned by reason of original sin alone, if the grace of the savior does not come to their aid by the bath of rebirth. But all the rest who, in using free choice, have added their own personal sins on top of original sin, if they are not rescued from the power of darkness by the grace of God and transferred to the kingdom of Christ, will receive judgment, not only according to the merits of their origin, but also according to merits of their own will.” - Second Letter of Augustine to Abbot Valentine, AP4 WSA 1.26.47
“He calls them, then, as a Physician who is not needed for those that are whole, but for those that are sick; and who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Now, inasmuch as infants are not held bound by any sins of their own actual life, it is the guilt of original sin which is healed in them by the grace of Him who saves them by the laver of regeneration.” - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 24
“For what Christian is there who would allow it to be said, that any one could attain to eternal salvation without being born again in Christ,—[a result] which He meant to be effected through baptism, at the very time when such a sacrament was purposely instituted for regenerating in the hope of eternal salvation? Whence the apostle says: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us by the laver of regeneration.” This salvation, however, he says, consists in hope, while we live here below, where he says, “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.” Who then could be so bold as to affirm, that without the regeneration of which the apostle speaks, infants could attain to eternal salvation,” - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 23
“It is false, therefore, that the dead are judged also in regard to what they would have done if the gospel had reached them while they were alive. And if this is false, there is no reason why it might be said of infants who perish because they die without Baptism that in their case it happens deservedly because God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief. It remains, therefore, that they are held bound by original sin alone, and for this alone they go to damnation; and we see that with others original sin is remitted only through the gratuitous grace of God in regeneration.” - The Gift of Perseverance, 9, 23
Augustine speaks at length about his views on inherited guilt, infant damnation, and regenerative infant baptism. As we went over in our original sin triad, he affirmed perpetually inherited/imputed Adamic guilt as one of the consequences of the fall. His remedy to solve this problem was water baptism. As a consequence, infants who die without water baptism won't be saved. These infants are "condemned by reason of original sin alone." These infants "remain in darkness."
“It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation; whereas the apostle says: “Judgment from one offence to condemnation,” - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 21
“Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ. Now he that is not made alive in Christ must necessarily remain under the condemnation, of which the apostle says, that ‘by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation'. That infants are born under the guilt of this offense is believed by the whole Church” - Letter 166, Treatise on the Origin of the Human Soul, Chapter 7.21
“Now in which of these classes must we place infants—amongst those who believe on the Son, or amongst those who believe not the Son? In neither, say some, because, as they are not yet able to believe, so must they not be deemed unbelievers. This, however, the rule of the Church does not indicate, for it joins baptized infants to the number of the faithful. Now if they who are baptized are, by virtue of the excellence and administration of so great a sacrament, nevertheless reckoned in the number of the faithful, although by their own heart and mouth they do not literally perform what appertains to the action of faith and confession; surely they who have lacked the sacrament must be classed amongst those who do not believe on the Son, and therefore, if they shall depart this life without this grace, they will have to encounter what is written concerning such—they shall not have life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. Whence could this result to those who clearly have no sins of their own, if they are not held to be obnoxious to original sin?” - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 28
“If you wish to be a catholic, refrain from believing, or saying, or teaching that "infants which are forestalled by death before they are baptized may yet attain to forgiveness of their original sins." - On the Soul and its Origin, Book III, Chapter 12
“For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act.” - International Theological Commission, The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptized, para. 11
“It is virtually an axiom of historical theology that the doctrine of original sin, as we recognize it today, cannot be traced back beyond Augustine.” - Gerald Bray, Original Sin in patristic thought, p. 37
“The most critical point of difference between the East and the West is the absence among the Greek-speaking theologians of the concept of inherited guilt, which is the central point of the Latin doctrine of sin. Without exception among the Greek theologians, the inheritance from Adam’s sin was mortality and corruption only. That is, the Greek fathers taught that humanity inherited Adam’s punishment, death, but not Adam’s sin. Guilt for sin could only be the result of a freely committed personal act. The Greek theologians consistently espoused the sinlessness of infants as late as John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, contemporaries of Augustine.” - Toews, The Story of Original Sin, Chapter 4
This is something that has widespread acknowledgment in scholarship. Augustine is exposing his unreliability on this issue. He is a prime example of the original sin doctrinal triad in action.
“C. Tell me, pray, and rid me of all doubts, why little children are baptized.A. That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism.C. What sin are they guilty of? How can any one be set free who is not bound?A. You ask me! The Gospel trumpet will reply, the teacher of the Gentiles, the golden vessel shining throughout the world: Romans 5:14 “Death reigned from Adam even unto Moses: even over those who did not sin after the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of Him that was to come.” And if you object that some are spoken of who did not sin, you must understand that they did not sin in the same way as Adam did by transgressing God's command in Paradise. But all men are held liable either on account of their ancient forefather Adam, or on their own account. He that is an infant is released in baptism from the chain which bound his father.” - Against the Pelagians, Book III.18
“Unto our God, who has called us unto His kingdom and glory, 1 Thessalonians 2:12 I have prayed, and pray now, that what I write to you, holy brother Jerome…” - Augustine of Hippo, Letter 166, Treatise on the Origin of the Human Soul, Chapter 1.1
"I know you are not one of those who have begun of late to utter certain new and absurd opinions, alleging that there is no guilt derived from Adam which is removed by baptism in the case of infants. If I knew that you held this view, or, rather, if I did not know that you reject it, I would certainly neither address this question to you, nor think that it ought to be put to you at all." - Augustine of Hippo, Letter 166, Treatise on the Origin of the Human Soul, Chapter 3.6
“Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ. Now he that is not made alive in Christ must necessarily remain under the condemnation, of which the apostle says, that ‘by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation'. That infants are born under the guilt of this offense is believed by the whole Church” - Augustine of Hippo, Letter 166, Treatise on the Origin of the Human Soul, Chapter 7.21
We don't have as much content from Jerome as Augustine regarding the fate of deceased infants. He seems to clearly affirm inherited/imputed Adamic guilt and that it warrants infant baptism as a remedy for that guilt. We've previously cited Augustine's letter 166 where he clearly affirms all three points of the original sin triad. That letter is actually addressed to Jerome as the recipient. It would seem that Augustine believes that Jerome is in agreement with him on the issue. In chapter three, Augustine points out his belief that Jerome isn't one of those who believe there's no guilt derived from Adam which is to be removed by infant baptism.
"At the suggestion of Jerome, Marcellinus (for whom see Letter CXXVI.) had consulted Augustine on the difficult question of the origin of the soul but had failed to get any definite opinion from this latter. Augustine now writes to Jerome confessing his inability to decide the question and asking for advice upon it. He begins by reciting—and justifying—his own belief that the soul is immortal and incorporeal and that its fall into sin is due not to God but to its own free choice. He then goes on to say that he is quite ready to accept creationism as a solution of the difficulty if Jerome will shew him how this theory is reconcilable with the church’s condemnation of Pelagius and its assertion of the doctrine of original sin. The damnation of unbaptized infants is assumed throughout. The date of the letter is 415 a.d. Its number in the Letters of Augustine is CLXVI." - Philip Schaff, NPNF2.06, p. 641
“So great was Augustine's authority in the West, however, that the Latin Fathers (e.g., Jerome, Fulgentius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory the Great) did adopt his opinion.” - International Theological Commission, The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptized, para. 20
Philip Schaff, commenting on this letter, says that infant damnation is assumed throughout it. While Augustine's writing to Jerome was to inquire about his view on the origin of the soul and whether Traducianism or Creationism was correct, infant damnation seemed like it was granted and presumed to be a point of agreement between the two of them. The ITC also comes to the same conclusion about Jerome.
“But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic. But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” - Letter of Pope Innocent I to the fathers of the council of Milevis, 30, 5
"Lo, Pope Innocent, of blessed memory, says that infants have not life without Christ's baptism, and without partaking of Christ's body and blood." - Augustine of Hippo, Against two letters of the Pelagians, Book II, Chapter 7
Innocent also affirmed the doctrinal triad of original sin by saying it's idiotic to believe that infants can be given eternal life without water baptism. He asserts eternal life is only conferred upon infants through baptism. We also have the secondary testimony from Augustine that this is what Innocent believed regarding the salvation of infants.
"Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration." - Council in 418, Canon II
“Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the Lord, "In my Father's house are many mansions" is to be understood as meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will be a certain middle place, or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who have gone forth from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For after our Lord has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven," what Catholic can doubt that he who has not merited to be coheir with Christ shall become a sharer with the devil: for he who fails of the right hand without doubt shall receive the left hand portion.” - Council in 419, Canon CX
We clearly see the original sin triad of doctrines in these Carthaginian councils. First, we see the belief that from the womb we are personally guilty of Adam's sin. Second, we see the belief that this inherited guilt is to be immediately removed by water baptism. Third, we see that without this there is no happy ending for children who die without water baptism. They can't have eternal life in the kingdom of heaven and neither can they inhabit a "middle place". Those who disagree with these beliefs are anathematized.
“Consider also the case of the whole multitude of children. In none of them do you find deserts, neither past nor future, only the sin in which the whole human race is born unto damnation. We speak now of children before the use of reason and before they are able to make any use of their free will. Some are regenerated in baptism and pass on to eternal happiness, others are not reborn and go to unending misery.” - The call of all nations, Book 1, Chapter 16
“For instance, let us reflect on this. Among pagans, among Jews, among heretics, and among Catholic Christians also, how large a number of children die who manifestly, as far as their own wills go, have done neither good nor evil! But we are told that on them weighs the sentence which the human race received for the sin of Adam, our first father. And the rigour of this sentence, which is not relaxed even for children, proves only how grave that sin was. Were children not to suffer harm from their privation of baptism, then also we would no longer believe that no one is born in innocence.” - The call of all nations, Book 2, Chapter 21
“But this supposition, that the happiness of children can never be frustrated, would add great strength to the erroneous opinion which ventures to say, in opposition to our Catholic faith, that men receive grace according to their merit. For then it would look as though the guiltless innocence of infants could claim in full justice that not one of their number should fail to receive this adoption, because no guilt holds them in chains. Then there would have been nothing against the faith in the statement made by someone about the baptism of children: "Grace has something to adopt, but the water of baptism has nothing to cleanse." But all followers of the truth see the execrable implication of the gospel preached here. It is obvious that all who die without baptism are lost;” - The call of all nations, Book 2, Chapter 24
Prosper was a disciple of Augustine. He certainly retained the original sin triad that Augustine affirmed. He's clear that all humans are "born unto damnation" because of Adam's sin. He says that the sentence of Adam's sin is on infants and not relaxed. Prosper also views water baptism as the only way to remedy this conundrum. All infants who die without baptism "go to unending misery." Nobody who dies without baptism has any hope in his mind. He so strongly connected baptism to damnation and the issue of innocence. Prosper says that if unbaptized deceased children didn't suffer damnation he would then believe children were born innocent. He conveys that if it were true that no guilt holds infants in chains (as some suppose) they could "claim in full justice" that no deceased infants would fail to receive the Christian adoption. Prosper puts on display for us the historic connection between inherited Adamic guilt and infant damnation. If the former is true the latter is true. If the former is false the latter is false.
"Perhaps hope comforts her as she grieves, if only the son she bears should live. But it often happens that as she groans she gives birth to dead children. And often the dead limbs of a mother assign a double tomb to an offspring never born because of death's intervention. And how often does that less terrible thing occur, that the mother herself dies alone and, after bringing forth her burden, gives up both the child and her ghost? What if it happens that a child, raised and nourished year after year, is carried off by death, one on whom, again and again, a mother's one hope rested? Then everything is gone, everything her joys promised her when she framed her prayers. And a case more dreadful than all of these occurs when envious death snatches away a tender child who lacks baptism and who must be borne under that harsh sentence to Hell. Such a child, when it ceases to be the child of its mother, becomes the son of damnation, and its sad parents wish unborn the limbs to which they gave life only to see them consigned to the flames." - The Poems of Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus, Poem 6, 171-216
In the context of childbirth and infants who are miscarried or die soon thereafter, Avitus says that "a tender child" that dies without water baptism becomes a son of damnation, sentenced to hell, and consigned to the flames. His conclusions almost certainly come from a premise of original sin and inherited/imputed Adamic guilt from conception.
“Hold most firmly and never doubt that, not only adults with the use of reason but also children who either begin to live in the womb of their mothers and who die there or, already born from their mothers, pass from this world without the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, which is given in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, must be punished with the endless penalty of eternal fire. Even if they have no sin from their own actions, still, by their carnal conception and birth, they have contracted the damnation of Original Sin.” - To Peter on the faith, 70
“For through the sacrament of holy baptism, that life is freed from the bonds of original sin, which had been bound by the chains of the same sin. And because the power of holy baptism is so great that when it found life in which it loosed that chain of original sin, it washed away as well by the blessing of the second birth all those things which it found which had been added later.” - Letter to Ferrandus, 18
“For sometimes a child is born to believers, even to those who (as we have already said) are solicitous with godly faith and love for the redemption of their child, but he dies before he is washed by the sacred water of baptism. Another child is born to unbelieving parents who do not enthusiastically or even tepidly desire his salvation; in fact, they do not even desire it at all. This child is violently taken away from his parents or kidnapped by the order of a dispensation from above and is brought to holy baptism because of the devoted love of certain believers, and soon after being baptized he departs this life. If one considers the first state of these two children, both are equally children of wrath because they are both simultaneously bound by the same debt of original sin. And where the states of the two are completely equal, their merits surely cannot be said to be unequal. Therefore, there is no difference in the states of the children that might cause one to be elected and the other to be rejected. In fact, if one takes the will of the parents into consideration, the Christian parents earnestly desired that their child be baptized and hastened eagerly to have it done, but their child was prevented by death from being baptized and was assigned to the eternal fires.” - The truth about predestination and grace, 27
Fulgentius clearly demonstrates the doctrinal triad of original sin. All children who die after conception "must be punished with the endless penalty of eternal fire" if they aren't yet water-baptized. The reasoning for this is that "they have contracted the damnation of original sin." He's very explicit that even if a child is born to believers but dies while the parents desired and hastened to have the infant baptized, even then the child is assigned to eternal fires. This is again because he believed the child was guilty of Adam's sin from conception.
"For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; There they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. But forasmuch as after death there also follows, death eternal, by a secret and righteous judgment ‘wounds are multiplied to them without cause.’ For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will." - Exposition on the book of blessed Job, Volume 1, Book IX, Chapter 32
Gregory doesn't explicitly mention infants here, but it's quite clear that he has them in mind. He's speaking of those who die before they can show good or evil and haven't "sinned by their own will" yet. Those who die in this state before being freed "from the sin of their birth" by "the sacraments of salvation" receive everlasting torments and eternal death. It seems to us that Gregory affirmed the original sin doctrinal triad.
“Therefore, I understand original sin to be nothing other than that sin which is in an infant as soon as he has a rational soul— irrespective of what may have happened to his body (e.g., the corruption of its members) before it was thus animated, or irrespective of what may happen to either his body or his soul afterwards. And on the basis of the aforegiven reasons I think that in all infants who are naturally propagated original sin is equal and that all who die with only this sin are equally condemned. Indeed, whatever sin accrues to a man over and above original sin is personal sin. And just as the person is born sinful because of the nature, so the nature is made more sinful because of the person, since when any person sins, his human nature (homo) sins.” - The virgin conception and original sin, chapter 27
“There are those whose mind resists accepting [the view] that infants dying unbaptized ought to be condemned solely on account of the injustice of which I have spoken. Their reasons are (1) that no man judges infants to be blameworthy as the result of another person's sin, (2) that in such a state infants are not yet just and discerning, and (3) that God (so they think) ought not to judge innocent infants more severely than men judge them.” - The virgin conception and original sin, chapter 28
Again, we see on display the historical connection between inherited Adamic guilt and infant damnation. If the former is true the latter is true. If the former is false the latter is false. Anselm's interlocutors that dispute infants being damned upon death because they're guilty of Adam's sin do so because infants aren't guilty yet and don't yet have knowledge of good or evil. But Anselm is firm in his belief that all infants are "equally condemned" if they die unbaptized because of their inherited Adamic guilt. Anselm, like others before him in this tradition, affirmed the original sin triad.
"Therefore, returning to the principal subject, how great should we deem that harshness which God seems to exercise in children, where, since he finds no merit, he neverthleless introduces the most oppressive punishment of infernal fire." - Commentary on Romans, Book II, 167
"But because it does not suffice for the commendation of divine dispensation to absolve God from injustice in this damnation of children, unless we are able to demonstrate in some degree the grace of his goodness, it seems to us that that also is done by the dispensation of his manifold grace that abounds both to those children and the others. For we know that this is the most lenient punishment...God even uses well this most lenient punishment of children for our correction, so that of course we are made more cautious to avoid our own sins, since we should believe that such innocents, from whom neither burial nor the prayers of the faithful are withdrawn, are damned daily because of another's sins; and we should return thanks to him more fully since he frees us through his grace from that perpetual fire after the many crimes we have committed, from which fire he saves those innocents not at all." - Commentary on Romans, Book II, 169-170
"It is therefore original sin with which we are born, that debt of damnation with which we are bound, since we are made guilty of eternal punishment on account of the fault of our origin, that is, of our first parents, from whom our origin derived. For in him, as the Apostle mentioned above, we have sinned; that is, we are consigned to eternal damnation on account of his sin, so that, unless the medicine of the divine sacraments should come to our aid, we would be eternally damned." - Commentary on Romans, Book II, 171
"So also, in the damnation of children, when they suffer what they did not deserve, many causes of most sound divine dispensation can exist, in addition to these which we have identified, so that it is not unjust that they are punished in this way, even though they did not deserve it. God uses such punishment not unprofitably both for them and for others, as we have ascribed above to some not improbable opinions, so that it seems that this most lenient punishment of children should be attributed to the grace of God rather than to his righteousness, and in what seems the greatest harshness of God, the dispensation of great grace should be preached." - Commentary on Romans, Book II, 172
Abelard takes a slightly different approach than others before him regarding original sin and infant damnation. He tries to put forth positive benefits we receive from God damning infants to perpetual fire. He also says that the punishment of infants is "more lenient"; but it's still eternal damnation in a perpetual fire. Peter says that God damning infants is "for our correction". It's supposed to make us more cautious of our own sins. He says that the damning of infants in a "more lenient" way is supposedly attributed to God's grace. As with those before him in the original sin tradition, he viewed the sacraments as the only way an infant can be saved from eternal damnation.
"The common doctrine was summarized by Hugh of St. Victor: infants who die unbaptised cannot be saved because (1) they have not received the sacrament, and (2) they cannot make a personal act of faith that would supply for the sacrament." - International Theological Commission, The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptized, para. 21
While we don't have access to the primary source, the ITC references Summa Sententiarum, tract. V, cap. 6 (PL 176, 132). It seems to us that Hugh's beliefs regarding infant salvation align with those before him in the original sin tradition.
"However, the souls of those who after having received holy baptism have incurred no stain of sin whatever, also those souls who, after contracting the stain of sin, either while remaining in their bodies or being divested of them, have been cleansed, as we have said above, are received immediately into heaven. The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments." - Denzinger, Sources of Dogma, 464
In the Second Council of Lyon, we see more of the same. There's some nuance regarding the exact punishment of infants to be sure. The infants are undoubtedly damned. We're told that they "descend to hell". However, the implication of the punishment being different is that the punishment is less severe.
"On the question of man’s salvation and spiritual beatitude, Gregory taught what he conceived to be Augustinian doctrine...He proposed, moreover, that children dying without Baptism would suffer eternal punishment, thus earning the nickname “infant torturer.”" - Britannica, Gregory of Rimini, para. 3
"Gregory adhered to Augustine's teachings on predestination and famously condemned unbaptized infants to Hell, earning him the nickname Infantium Tortor (torturer of infants)." - Wikipedia, Gregory of Rimini, Philosophy, para. 3
"Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." - Session VI, Para. 11
175 years later, the Council of Florence made virtually the same statement.
"You child baptizers say that when a child dies without baptism it is lost and will never see God. Show me, I ask you, one single letter of proof for this in the Holy Scriptures. Christ says about the children that the kingdom of heaven is theirs or of such, and that whoever receives one of them receieves him. They belong to him. Whatever you do to the least of these my own, says the Lord, you have done it to me. Now if they are his, the dear little children are not lost. Never!" - Testimonies of Faith, 100-101
Hans Schlaffer was an early Anabaptist during the time of the Protestant Reformation. He was burned at the stake over his disagreement with infant baptism in 1528. While he doesn't affirm original sin or infant damnation, he makes a comment about "child baptizers" and their view on what happens to infants who die without baptism. According to Hans, the child baptizers at his time believed that infants are "lost and will never see God" if they die without baptism. The cause of infants being lost is without a doubt inherited Adamic guilt. In Hans, we see a testimony against the triad of original sin causing infant damnation and warranting infant baptism which saves from this damnation all the while acknowledging the existence of this doctrinal triad during the early 16th century.
"If any one denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they draw nought of original sin from Adam, which has need to be expiated by the laver of regeneration, for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows, as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false,—let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet in themselves commit any sin, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that which they have contracted by generation, may be cleansed away by regeneration. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." - Session V, Number IV
"This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” - Alphonsus Liguori, On the Council of Trent, p. 56
While Trent is more aimed at speaking of the benefits of baptism that must be affirmed rather than speaking of what happens to infants who die without baptism; Alphonsus Liguori, a canonized saint in the Roman Catholic Church, interprets this session to mean that all infants who die without water baptism are lost because of possessing Adam's guilt.
No comments:
Post a Comment