Augustine. Part 1. Was He The Greatest?

         Why do Roman Catholics and other Bible-believing groups like Lutherans and Calvinists hold Augustine in such high regard? Isn’t that odd, given how different their doctrines are? Remember, Lutherans separated from the apostate Roman Catholic Church during the Great Reformation, so why do they support a theologian embraced by the Catholic Church? We will explore answers to these and related questions.

         Theologian and author R. C. Sproul stated that he and others believe Augustine might be the greatest theologian of all time and certainly the greatest of the first millennium. That’s a bold claim. What made Augustine’s theology so extraordinary? We will look at what he believed, and then you can decide for yourself if Sproul’s assertion holds true. There’s no denying that Augustine has had a major influence on Christian theology for the past 1600 years. But the question remains: was his impact positive or negative? Did it strengthen the body of Christ or lead it astray? What are the results of the tree of Augustinian theology?

According to Wikipedia, “Augustine of Hippo lived from AD 354 to 430. He was a theologian and philosopher of Berber origin and the bishop of Hippo Regius in Numidia, Roman North Africa. His writings significantly influenced the development of Western philosophy and Western Christianity, and he is regarded as one of the most important Church Fathers of the Latin Church in the Patristic period. His many important books include “The City of God, On Christian Doctrine and Confessions.” The Roman Catholic Church calls him Saint Augustine and recognizes him as a Doctor of the Church. R. C. Sproul, a Reformed theologian, calls him the greatest theologian who ever lived.

A historical perspective provides context for our discussion. Roman Emperor Constantine the Great halted the persecution of Christians with his Edict of Milan in AD 313. Until then, persecuting Christians was commonplace. Constantine became both the head of the church and the ruler of the state. The compromise of biblical Christianity grew as he incorporated pagan elements into the Christian faith. Additionally, he aimed to unite various Christian groups under his leadership or that of the Roman emperor, with both the state and church under his control. Some historians believe he resumed persecuting Christians around AD 330 if they refused to follow his new world order. Author E. H. Broadbent stated that the first persecutions of Christians by Christians (the new Catholic Church under the Roman Empire) began in AD 385. Siricus (384-399) was the first Roman Emperor to adopt the title of Pontifex Maximum and the new title of “Pope.”

During the few hundred years after Christ’s death, many heresies were infiltrating the church, and the Bible was being tampered with from Alexandria, Egypt. A revised Alexandrian Bible was either authored or edited by Origen. Constantine’s order to print 50 Bibles is likely attributed to Origen, according to some authors. Jerome completed his update or revision of the Old Latin Bible, the Vulgate, in AD 405. His new Latin Bible, known as the Latin Vulgate, was not well received. During this period, outside forces, such as the Visigoths in AD 410, began attacking the Roman Empire. For a time, the persecution of Bible-believing Christians was paused.

Pope Celestine I (AD 422-432), a friend of Augustine, called the Council of Ephesus the Third Ecumenical Council. At this council, the Roman Church first used the title “Mother of God” to describe Mary. This clearly indicates compromise within the body of Christ. The council also approved writings from church fathers such as Origen (185-253), Augustine, Jerome (347-419/420), Irenaeus (120/140-200/203), and Eusebius (died in 339). Many other church fathers who walked with the apostles were not listed. Eventually, veneration of Mary became mandatory, and those who refused faced persecution. There is strong reason to believe that some of these ‘fathers’ were never truly saved or authentic Christians, yet they were highly honored in the growing Roman Catholic Church.

Even before all the apostles died, they and other leaders of the Christian Church fought many heretical beliefs. Augustine lived during this period, from AD 354 to 430. From the time of Christ onward, people sought to compromise, corrupt, weaken, and alter the Word of God.

For instance, Origen literally weakened and compromised the written word of God and taught unbiblical ideas. What about Augustine? Did he, too, weaken the Word of God and promote unorthodox or unbiblical beliefs? Did all of the church fathers agree with Augustine? Or was Augustine’s theology a departure from the apostles’ teachings and the teachings of those students of the apostles who led the body of Christ after the apostles’ death? You may be surprised to learn that some of Augustine’s most important doctrines were considered heretical by the earliest church fathers. (Specific examples follow.)

The trend within the church under Roman rule was toward compromise and apostasy. It started with Constantine the Great and the unification of the Catholic Church. Genuine Bible-believing Christians faced persecution, and many left the organized church to escape to the hills. The Roman Catholic Church became something many Christians could not accept.

After centuries of persecution by the Roman Catholic Church, God inspired a Reformation that led to the rise of Protestant Christianity. However, from the beginning, the true church of Jesus Christ never compromised the truth and coexisted with the heretical Roman Catholic Church, constantly facing threats of torture and death.

Let us look at what Augustine believed:

• Jesus set aside his divinity when born of the flesh and took it up again when he was resurrected.

I’m not sure all Christians would agree with that statement as written. Perhaps a better way to express this idea is: Jesus set aside the prerogatives of deity, not His actual deity (which is impossible), when He was born a man.

• God is good and, therefore, he cannot be the cause of evil.

It’s unlikely that any Christian would oppose this Augustinian belief. However, you’ll see that Augustine’s distorted understanding of Scripture actually makes God “the cause of evil.” He seems to have overlooked the apparent contradiction. If we are born sinners by God’s will, as Augustine believed, then God is the author of sin in a very real and truthful sense.

• Supposedly, Augustine converted from Manichaeism to the Christian faith and was baptized in 387.

It seems quite clear that Augustine continued to hold onto some major errors of Manichaeism and Gnosticism. More on this when we examine the beliefs of Manichaeism below.

• Augustine supposedly believed that man did have free will, according to Wikipedia. He wrote about us having two wills: a willing will and an unwilling will. He disagreed with Manichee about having a good and an evil will.

We will examine this more carefully, as it is a half-truth at best. Augustine’s comments are a collection of self-contradictory statements. For example, an unwilling will cannot be a free will by definition. Moreover, saying a willing will is redundant. Augustine and his followers, such as Luther, Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards, have altered the definition of free will (the ability to obey or disobey God) to argue that man has free will, even though it’s clear that man lost free will in the fall. If we are born sinners who can do nothing but sin, then we do not have free will because we cannot choose to obey God anymore. (See appendix on Free Will and Original Sin).

• He believed in the immortality of the soul.

Not everyone who claims to be Christian believes in the immortality of the soul. Many do, and they reject ideas like conditional immortality, conditionalism, mortalism, and annihilationism. The historic Christian view holds that there is a real hell forever. It is the place where all who are not in Christ will go to spend eternity in the lake of fire. (See my article on hell.)

• Augustine believed that babies who are not baptized and die go to hell because of Adam’s sin. He supported the idea of infant baptismal regeneration.

This belief is held by most Catholics and is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Not long ago, the Roman Catholic Church would punish Christians who refused to baptize their babies or who wanted to be baptized again as believing adults. These Bible believers did not believe in infant baptismal regeneration. That said, some Christian denominations today may practice infant baptism but do not connect regeneration to it.

This is part of the doctrine of Original Sin and its effects. Most Christians believe that we sinned in Adam and are guilty because of his sin. Augustine was likely the first Christian to claim that children inherit the guilt of Adam’s original sin. Additionally, when Adam sinned, his descendants are born in sin because they inherit a sinful nature from him. Augustine introduced this significant and harmful falsehood into the Christian world.

• Augustine believed that we cannot obey God’s law, which commands us to believe and repent. Luther, Calvin, and others understood Augustine to teach predestination, irresistible grace, total depravity, unconditional election, and the preservation of the saints.

Augustine introduced these errors into the Christian world through the false doctrine of Original Sin. If people are born sinners because of Adam’s Original Sin, then they are born unable to obey God’s law. They are born unable to believe and repent. The Bible, reason, common sense, and logic do not support this falsehood or any of the other dogmas mentioned above.

• Augustine’s most outstanding false teaching was this. “He, beyond all others, formulated the doctrine of salvation by the Church only, by means of her sacraments. To take salvation out of the hands of the Savior and put it into the hands of men; to interpose a system of man’s devising between the Savior and the sinner, is the very opposite of the Gospel revelation. Christ says, “Come to Me” and no priest or church has the authority to intervene.” (From the book, The Pilgrim Church, by E. H. Broadbent, page 23).

This falsehood is a main reason why the Roman Catholic Church favors Augustine. However, the Bible completely contradicts this. The “Church” or visible religious organization does not save anyone. Only repentance and faith in Jesus Christ bring salvation. Jesus Christ is the savior of sinful humanity, not the Roman Catholic Church or any church organization, for that matter. Sacraments do not save and are not a means of receiving grace. (See my article What Defiles a Man and What Makes Him Holy). Only the truth of the gospel saves. All grace comes from God to those who humble themselves and follow His way.

• Augustine was therefore strongly in favor of consolidating churches under a single human authority, which often meant not under the authority of the Spirit of God.

The Roman Catholic Church uses Augustine to justify the primacy of the Pope and the concept of the one true church. The history of the Roman Catholic Church’s organization after Augustine’s death reveals the critical flaw in this belief. Over the past 1500 years, many millions of genuine born-again Christians have been killed by the Roman Catholic Church (one central authority and the one true church).

The ‘church’ in scripture refers to the community of true believers in Jesus Christ, regardless of the building or place where they worship. Jesus is the head of this body, not the Pope or any other human. We often use the word ‘Church’ to refer to our denomination or the building where we hold services.

• Augustine was even led to the compelling of unity (by force if needed). “Such teaching, from such an authority, incited, and justified those methods of persecution by which Papal Rome equaled the cruelties of pagan Rome.” (Page 24 of Broadbent’s book). “The Roman Catholic Church was an eager and faithful executioner of his ideas”.

This is a consequence of Augustine’s ideas and doctrines. He may or may not have actually participated in the murder of non-conforming Christians, but his teachings set everything in motion. It seems he might have blood on his hands. The Bible clearly states that no murderer has eternal life dwelling within them, as seen in 1 John. This passage in 1 John specifically discusses hating a brother and equates that with murder. If hating is murder, what about actual murder—does that count too? It does. Think about this for a moment. Would any true believer in Jesus Christ ever support the idea that those who reject the message of Christ should be murdered and all their possessions stolen? Is that what it means to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself? I can’t believe it.

Augustine and Pelagius

Augustine clashed with a man named Pelagius and his associate Celestinus. Pelagius rejected infant baptismal regeneration and Original Sin, contrary to Augustine’s beliefs. Councils in the east sided with Pelagius, while those in the west condemned him due to Augustine’s strong influence. Pope Innocent in Rome was appealed to and saw this as a chance to assert his authority. He excommunicated Pelagius and his followers. What a man of conviction and impeccable motives!

 The pope’s successor reinstated Pelagius and his followers. Is this another classic example of Papal infallibility? In the West, the Catholic church leadership received help from civil authorities to pressure the Pope into changing his decision, resulting in Pelagius and his supporters being banished and their property confiscated (stolen). However, the new Pope changed his mind, demonstrating the integrity for which he was known. (Can you say papal infallibility?) Eighteen Italian bishops refused to submit to the Imperial judgment. One bishop argued that such disputes should be settled differently, not through force. What a fantastic idea—that a man of God might consider persuasion rather than force. (From Broadbent’s book).

Not everything Augustine said was unbiblical and harmful. These are some great quotes from Augustine.

1. “Pray as if everything depended on God, and work as if everything depended on you.
2. This is the very perfection of man, to find out his own imperfections.
3. There is no saint without a past and no sinner without a future.
4. If you believe what you like in the Gospel and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe but yourself.”

At the time of Augustine, what critical heresies was the Christian Church facing?

The author Broadbent stated that from the third to the fifth century, four false teachings significantly affected the church then and even today. They are;

1. Manichaeism teaches that our flesh is evil. However, Scripture states that God created man in His image and declared it very good, including the flesh of man. Augustine studied this philosophy for about nine years, as I recall. Some of this pagan thinking is evident in his other false teachings.
2. Arianism, which denied the deity of Jesus Christ. However, the Bible tells us that God was made manifest in the flesh. This Arian heresy is the result of the Gnostic and Manichaean belief that the flesh is sinful and evil. If that is true, then Jesus could never be a man in the flesh, according to Arianism.
3. Pelagianism, which denies the doctrine of Original Sin. Mankind is not guilty of Adam’s sin and is not born with a sinful nature. (See appendix for a complete discussion of Original Sin.)
4. Sacerdotalism, which holds that salvation is to be found in the organized Church, taking the sacraments administered by the priests of Rome. The Bible, of course, does not teach this. It teaches that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Salvation is a gift of God. Jesus taught us to repent and believe in the gospel to receive this gift.

What are the errors of Pelagius?

The author, Broadbent, believes that Pelagius was wrong about Original Sin for these reasons:

“Affirming that Adam’s sin only affected himself and his own relations with God, and that each human being born into the world is originally without sin, 1) it weakens man’s sense of his need of a savior, 2) prevents his coming to a true knowledge of himself, and 3) leads him to seek salvation, partly at least, in himself.” (page 27 of Broadbent’s book)

Before I respond to Broadbent’s comments, let us define the Original Sin dogma. (See the appendix also.)

What is the doctrine of Original Sin? It states that humanity shares in the guilt of Adam’s original sin and is subsequently born with a sinful nature, which is the source and cause of all our sins. We are born unable to obey God or His law because we are born totally depraved and unable to believe and obey God.

Let me now take a moment to respond to each of Broadbent’s three objections just mentioned.

1. “it weakens man’s sense of his need of a savior”,

The author contends that not believing in the doctrine of Original Sin “weakens man’s sense of his need of a savior.” Not accepting the absurd and unbiblical doctrine of Original Sin does the exact opposite. It “strengthens a man’s sense of his need of a savior.’ How is that true? It eliminates the excuse of being born unable to obey God and do the right thing. Knowing that we are sinners by choice and not by nature makes us all the more guilty, despicable, and blameworthy. It makes us fully realize our need for a savior, and it strengthens that sense. It most definitely does not weaken that sense.

Broadbent insists that the dogma of Original Sin “weakens a man’s sense of his need for a savior.” No rational person believes they are guilty of the sins of someone who lived thousands of years before they were born. No thinking person holds themselves accountable for actions outside of their control. If I am born a sinner, and sin is unavoidable, then I am not responsible for my sin. Explain to me how that is not true.

• “prevents his coming to a true knowledge of himself, and”

This proposition, by Broadbent, is absurd. It confuses humanity with the idea that we are born guilty of Adam’s sin and are born sinners, who can do nothing but sin, and yet we are commanded not to sin. ‘Prevents humanity from coming to a true knowledge of ourselves’ and of God. Only a religiously gullible and ignorant person could believe they are guilty of another person’s sin committed centuries before they were born. Only the same ignorant yet religiously gullible person can believe that the good, holy, and just God who created them expects them not to sin. In contrast, He creates them, directly or indirectly, unable to stop sinning. It is lunacy. It makes no sense whatsoever.

3) “leads him to seek salvation, partly at least, in himself”.

This is the only statement by Broadbent that makes any sense and is truthful. If humanity does not have a role, any role at all, in their own salvation, then the following must be true: God chooses who will be saved, and everyone God does not choose to save will either be damned or annihilated. If you are a hyper-Calvinist, then you are probably saying Amen right now.

Of course, we have a role in our own salvation. Jesus commanded us to repent and believe. He outlines two conditions we must fulfill: we need to repent and believe. God doesn’t do it for us, as the Calvinist believes. (I have written extensively on this subject in my book, When Lies Become Truth).

“The recognition of our share in the Fall is intimately connected in scripture with our share in the atoning work of Christ, the second Adam; and, while individual responsibility and free will are insisted upon, this is not to the exclusion of, but in conjunction with, the teaching as to the will of God and the racial connection of mankind. This, while involving all in the same condemnation, includes all in the same salvation.” (Page 27 of Broadbent’s book, emphasis added).

This final section of the author’s comments is filled with vague language that only creates more confusion. Is everyone saved? Jesus died for everyone, did He not? So, is everyone saved? He did die for all, but we must repent and believe to receive the benefits of His atonement. Only a five-point Calvinist might accept this unclear mix of theological ideas. I know it sounds very spiritual, but it doesn’t really convey anything of real importance. If any author writes elegant yet incomprehensible material, be very cautious.

Most Christians believe in and teach the doctrine of Original Sin; however, there are two who do not.

Let us examine another viewpoint, from one of the few that doesn’t embrace Original Sin and Sinful Nature. From this website, thebiblefornormalpeople.com, we read the following from a post titled, “Was There a ‘Fall’ or Did Augustine Really Screw Everything Up?” by Pete Enns, PhD, October 17, 2018. We read:

Most every Christian bases their understanding of Original Sin and its consequences on Romans 5:12-21. I do not know the percentage of evangelicals who accept the common interpretation of Original Sin, but I believe it must be the vast majority. I guess only a small minority of Bible-believing Christians have ever even heard that there might be an alternative to that story of the fall.

The reason seems clear to me. Christians become very defensive when anyone questions this ‘historic’ stance. This is similar to the Democrats who frequently accuse those who don’t support their dementia of being racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, white supremacist, or some other insult. Augustinian Christians accuse those who reject the typical understanding of Original Sin of being Pelagian, legalists, and definitely heretical. That usually ends any debate.

According to this article, “Augustine’s understanding of this passage and other Pauline passages have not been helpful and have twisted what Paul was actually saying”. He cites three problems.

1. “Roman 5. Augustine used a Latin translation of Romans 5:12, which has “in him” where the Greek has “because.” Augustine read this passage as death spread to all because all sinned ‘in him’ (in Adam). Therefore, we sinned in Adam, and that is how death spread to all men. We were somehow involved in Adam’s disobedience and guilt”. None of the Bible supports this understanding. Logic and reason object vociferously.
2. When Paul refers to ‘works,’ he is talking about the law of Moses and not to moral or natural law. “Paul is not saying that we can’t do anything to please God, so works are worthless. Have faith instead of trying to work your way to heaven. In Romans, Paul was focused on two Mosaic laws in particular: dietary laws and the law of circumcision. These things, along with the Sabbath law, set the Jews apart from every other nation. “Paul is saying that what now separates us from the pagan world is our faith in Jesus Christ. Paul is not setting up a faith versus works argument about how a person gets saved and goes to heaven. See Romans 13-15. Faith in Jesus Christ brings Jews and Gentiles together. If you get works wrong in Romans, you get the whole book wrong.” The false belief in Original Sin feeds this works versus faith argument about salvation.
3. The author takes issue with “Augustine’s belief that election is personal rather than corporate. Romans 8:28-29. Paul’s point is that the Gentiles are now in Christ and therefore every bit as “elect” in God’s mind as Israel. This passage is not only or even about a personal salvation experience. In Chapter 9 Paul argues that this was God’s plan all along, “and not a last-minute change.” In Romans 9:6-7, Paul states that the real children of Abraham include both Jews and Gentiles.”

In summary, “this misconception by Augustine negatively affects our understanding of much more than Adam’s sin. It impacts our understanding of sin, holiness, law, grace, justice, the role of good works, what salvation actually means, and the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.” The author is being kind and gentle in his rebuke.

From the web site, crosstheology.wordpress.com, we find this quote:

This is the second example. “Augustine himself. A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him…When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St Augustine was angry with Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards; There needed no other proof of any assertion, than “lpse dixit” St. Augustine said it.” (This comes from John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, 1835 Edition, volume 2, p. 110).

What a critical comment, which does not speak well of the conduct of Augustine, from one of the most essential voices in the last 500 years. John Wesley was one of the most influential men in my life. He believed in Original Sin, but was not buying Augustine’s other errors and his un-Christian-like conduct.

This website boldly proclaims that “Free Will and not Original Sin (total inability, total depravity, and so on) was the historic Christian position”! Amen to that statement of fact.

Calvinists, even today, almost always state emphatically that the doctrine of total depravity and total inability (Original Sin) is the only historic position of the Christian Church since Christ. According to this site and what I have learned, that is simply false.

“For the first 300 to 400 years, the doctrine of free will was universally taught by the Early church, “without exception,” according to this site. Early Christians were constantly defending free will from this false Gnostic belief, which taught total inability, determination, or fatalism. The early church believed that man’s free will determined his course in life and destiny”. Like some Christians today, the Gnostics thought that they were the only true Christians. They felt that by the fall of Adam, mankind lost all ability to believe, obey, and choose between good and evil. The early church did not think any of this. Free will was the orthodox position. When was the last time you heard that statement?

For many Christians today, if another Christian denies total depravity and total inability, they are the first ones to condemn them as being heterodox. They claim to be orthodox. Name-calling comes way too easily for many Christians.

“The Gnostics, including the Manichaeans, denied free will, while the early church believed that man must always have the ability or command over his own actions. Therefore, men and women must be able to choose good over evil. Manichaeans believed that mankind was under a “fatal necessity of sinning. Layman Beecher (a Presbyterian minister who died in 1863) said, “… the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church….natural inability was to that of pagan philosophers, the Gnostics and the Manichaeans,” as quoted from this site. Many, not all, Gnostic groups denied free will. “But one of the greatest threats to the early church was the Manichaeans, started by Manes, a Persian philosopher, also known as Mani.”

The early church thought that the Gnostic and Manichaean errors posed a significant threat to the Christian Church. They taught that the flesh was evil and sinful in itself. Flesh was a sinful substance. Therefore, they denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7 call them antichrist. The Gnostic sects taught that man was sinful by birth, but Christians taught that man was sinful by choice (1 John 2:9).

A proof text for ‘free will’ Christians is the passage that follows. “Paul in Philippians 4:3 mentions my fellow laborers in the gospel, and he names Clement (died AD 99),whose name he said was written in the book of life”. History knows this man as Clement of Rome. He wrote the following. “It is therefore in the power of everyone, since man has been made possessed of free will, whether he shall hear us to life, or the demons to destruction.”

Clement further said that free will was given because “he who is good by his own choice is really good: but he who is made good by another under necessity is not really good, because he is not what he is by his own choice.” (As quoted by Clement on this site). I love that statement of his. Even if something appears good but is involuntary, it is not good.

Clement also said, “For no other reason does God punish the sinner either in the present or in the future world, except because He knows that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gain the victory.” A sinner is punished, not for his inability and total depravity, but because he chooses to sin by a free act of his will. He was negligent. No rational-minded person can object to that, can they?

Ignatius of Antioch (died AD 140) was an early church father and a disciple of John the Apostle. He said men were sinners by choice and not by nature. Ignatius was eaten by lions in the Roman Coliseum for his faith in Jesus Christ. (The website gives two quotes of Ignatius if you are interested.)

The apostle John had another disciple named Polycarp (AD 69-155) who was the bishop of Smyrna when the Book of Revelation was written. This was one of the only churches not rebuked by Jesus in the book of Revelation. He was a personal friend of Ignatius, and he too was martyred in Rome.

Polycarp had a disciple named Irenaeus (120/140-200/203). He refuted the Gnostics by saying, “Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil; so that, without compulsion, he has the power, by his own will and choice, to perform God’s commandments.” (Site gives other quotes by him if you are interested).

Justin Martyr (died 165-167) was an early Christian evangelist and apologist, and he too was martyred by the Romans. This is what he said. “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishment, chastisement, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise and the other to be blamed. (Beautifully stated.) Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions – whether they may be – for neither would man be worthy of praise if he did not himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.” (Emphasis added). What grand statements that are so true.

Tertullian (160-240) was another leader of the early church, and he agreed with all this thinking about mankind’s free will, yet Augustine found something in his writings suggesting the opposite. This is not unusual, as theologians often say contradictory things.

Methodius (270-312) was a Christian martyr who lived toward the end of the third century. He also agreed and rebuked the pagan idea of fate and the lack of free will. He said that man, by nature, was not born evil and sinful. (Site lists some of his quotes if you are interested.)

Eusebius (died in 339) was a bishop in the early church who is considered the father of Church history. He wrote, “The Creator of all things has impressed a natural law upon the soul of every man, as an assistant and ally in his conduct, pointing out to him the right way by this law; but, by the free liberty with which he is endowed, making the choice of what is best worthy of praise and acceptance because he has acted rightly, not by force, but from his own free will, when he had it in his power to act otherwise. As, again, making him who chooses what is worst deserving of blame and punishment, as having by his own motion neglected the natural law, and becoming the origin and fountain of wickedness, and misusing himself, not from any extraneous necessity, but from free will and judgment. The fault is in him who chooses, not in God. For God has not made nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing but what is good. Everything is good which is according to nature. Every rational soul has naturally a good free will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of choice, and not of nature.” He went on to say that it was the doctrine of devils to teach that man’s will is not at liberty but in the bonds of necessity. Amen to that!

There are additional quotes from other early church fathers that I will not repeat. Check them out for yourself if you are interested.

Summary Remarks

We just reviewed what eight (8) very important church fathers believed. Some of them knew an apostle personally and were students of that apostle. Compare that to Augustine, who: 1) lived hundreds of years later, and 2) never met an apostle, and 3) was never tutored by an apostle personally. All of these eight men affirmed free will and rejected the Gnostic and Manichaean errors that the flesh was sinful (Original Sin dogma). They categorically dismissed what Augustine was peddling regarding imputed guilt and being born with a sinful nature.

But the oldest is best, right?

         The primary reason we have so many Bible translations today is that two ancient Greek manuscripts of the Bible were discovered in the mid-19^th century. They were supposed to be older than all the other 25,000 ancient manuscripts that we do have. Scholars then and today assured us that the “oldest must be the best” because they were closer to the originals. Do you see the contradiction or inconsistency here? Free will is the doctrine of the earliest church fathers (we just reviewed 8 of them), not the doctrine of Original Sin that Augustine proposed. Augustine is a later voice, not an earlier voice, than any of the eight quoted, so much for scholarship. Today, most scholars claim that the newer (Augustinian theology of Original Sin, sin nature) is better than the older (apostolic theology of free will). I trust you see the inconsistency.

Some remaining questions are:

• Is there more than one theory about Original Sin? Yes. See the appendix.

• Does every genuine Christian believe in Original Sin? No.

• If Original Sin is not taught in the Bible, why does this error persist? Most ‘Christians’ are unteachable, see appendix.

• If Original Sin and being born with a sinful nature are true, then how can we be saved if we can’t save ourselves? We covered this earlier, but see the appendix for more information.

• Why didn’t the primitive church believe in Original Sin and the sin nature? Why don’t all Christians today believe in Original Sin? See the appendix for a list of reasons.

• Can any act be a moral wrong on earth but not in Heaven? Can anything be unjust in Heaven but just on the earth? See the appendix for answers.

• What are the reasons why the dogma of Original Sin and a Sin Nature must be rejected? See the appendix for answers.

• What are additional objections to the belief that the Original Sin dogma is false? See the appendix for answers.

• Those who believe in Original Sin and a Sin Nature base their understanding on scripture like Romans 5. What other verses do advocates of Original Sin use to justify their position? Do these passages teach what they say they do? No. Refer to the appendix for the list and a more detailed interpretation.

The Blame Game!

Blaming Adam and God for our sins reminds me of the scene in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve knew they were naked after they disobeyed God, and they hid from God. God asked Adam what he had done and Adam said, ‘LORD, the woman that you gave me, she gave me the fruit and I did eat’. The woman blamed the serpent that God had made. Today, we blame Adam, God, and everybody else for our depravity. Original Sin and inability are the best excuses for sin that the devil ever inspired. We all know, by consciousness, that we are not guilty of another person’s evil, especially if we have absolutely nothing to do with that person’s sin. Only the religiously gullible can believe such nonsense. The Bible teaches that everyone dies for their own sins. (See appendix)

Augustinians often cite the following as a reason for believing in Original Sin and a sinful nature. They argue that this single dogma explains the extreme wickedness of humanity over the past 6000 years. And I agree, it’s not a pretty picture. How can we explain the terrible evil all around us if we are not born sinners who cannot be good? These are important questions that need answers. No one claims that mankind is sinless or nearly so. Our history is filled with violence, clearly showing the universal sinfulness of humanity. Men and women are sinful and selfish. The question is, how do we acquire that sinfulness? Does it come from Adam or ourselves?

Did God create Adam, Eve, and Satan with a completely depraved nature that forced and caused them to sin? Of course not. Yet, they still sinned. How can we explain this? Each of them sinned against God simply to satisfy their selfish desires, which they valued more than obeying God’s will.

The Bible clearly explains the origin and reason for sin in the Book of James. It states that we are drawn away and tempted by our own desires. When we choose to satisfy ourselves instead of following God’s law and will, we sin. We all know we could have made a better decision, but we choose not to. The blame, guilt, and punishment fall on us, not Adam, and certainly not on God.

“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” James 1:14,15

Could it be that Christianity took a wrong turn under Augustine?

Some of us believe that the source of most of what is wrong within the Christian Church can be traced back to Augustine’s unbiblical theology. He and those who followed in his footsteps;

• got salvation wrong,
• got sin wrong,
• got guilt wrong,
• got justice wrong,
• got mercy wrong,
• got forgiveness wrong,
• got sacraments and the church wrong, and
• got justification and sanctification wrong.

Augustine began with a flawed foundation by asserting that humanity is naturally sinful from birth. He relied on the doctrine of Original Sin and the complete inability of Adam’s descendants. As a result, he and his followers misinterpreted many other Christian doctrines.

Some of the most critical reasons why the dogma of original sin must be rejected are:

• Original Sin conflicts with our God given sense of justice. Sending someone to hell for committing a sin that they can’t avoid committing is an injustice. And sending babies to hell for Adam’s sin is injustice under all circumstances.
• Original Sin contradicts the necessary and irresistible affirmations of every man’s consciousness and intellect. We all know that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin or Hitler’s sin or our parents’ sin. It is impossible for us to feel and believe that we are really guilty apart from a religious deception. 
• Original Sin makes sin anything but the crime it is. Unavoidable sin is not blameworthy and can never be considered a criminal act. However, the Bible says sin is lawlessness and it is a criminal act, not to be pitied but to be rejected and punished.
• Original Sin contradicts the Word of God. Several passages of scripture suggest we inherit or are born with a sinful nature. (see appendix). All of these are best explained individually, but none of them stand the test. And none of them explain away these very compelling reasons why this dogma must be rejected. One example of a number that we will consider is this verse. In Psalm 58:3, we read, “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.”  Please remember that the Bible is full of figurative language. It is also full of language that is to be taken literally when the context demands a literal interpretation. This Psalm is not literal due to one simple fact: babies do not have the capacity for speech when they are born. It takes many months to develop. When we know an expression is contrary to reality, we are to understand that the writer is employing a figure of speech to make a point. 
• Original Sin makes God the author of sin and the cruelest person in the universe. God creates the laws that govern how we come by our nature at birth. If we are born with a sinful nature, then God is responsible for sin in the universe. Why didn’t God create us with the nature of a saint, so that no one would go to hell? And if God sends sinners, whom He created as sinners, to hell, doesn’t that make Him the most wicked and cruel person in the universe? It also makes God inconsistent and imperfect. 
• If Original Sin is true, sinners should be pitied and not condemned. If sin is involuntary, then we are not blameworthy and we should be pitied, not judged, and certainly not sent to hell.
• Original Sin makes the atonement of Christ an act of justice, not an act of grace. If God creates us sinners, then He owes us justice, and the atonement is necessary because He made us sinners. To be a just God, He must provide an atonement, or He would not be just. But the atonement was a great act of benevolence and grace to an undeserving people who are sinners by choice, not by nature.
• Original Sin states that a person sins in Adam, before they are created and come into existence. In what world does that ever make any sense at all? There is no court of law, in our depraved world, that would find a person guilty for a crime committed before they were born and had life. Yet how many Christians believe that in God’s perfect heaven, He does just that.
• If Original Sin and sinful nature are actual, it causes us to wink at, condone, and excuse sin in our lives. Can you think of a better excuse for your sin than being born with an irresistible craving for sin that you can never get rid of even with God’s grace? Can you think of a better reason for your sin than believing you are born a sinner, who can do nothing but sin until God regenerates you? If you are still sinning, it must be because God wants it that way.
• If the doctrine of Original Sin is true, it makes Jesus a sinner, or it must deny His humanity. Scripture says Jesus was born of the flesh and that Mary was His earthly mother and God His father. The Bible teaches us that Jesus was without sin throughout His life. Either Jesus was born with a sinful nature, or God never took on flesh and blood.
• If the dogma of Original Sin and a sinful nature are true, then the following false doctrines must also be true. Original sin gives birth to many false beliefs and doctrines, such as the following.

Immaculate Conception. Roman Catholic theologians knew that Mary must be free from original sin so that Jesus would not be born with a sinful nature. It is logical, just not Biblical.

Limbo. Unbaptized infants go here instead of hell. An obvious attempt to save the justice of God. If parents don’t have their kids baptized and the baby dies, the baby goes to limbo, not hell. That’s what Roman Catholics say they believe. If the baby dies and goes to limbo, it is not God’s fault; it is the parents’ fault for not getting the baby baptized right? Limbo is supposedly a place where neither the pains of hell nor the joys of heaven exist. Only blind and deceived men could believe such a ridiculous proposition. Limbo, as it is described, might even be worse than hell. Do babies exist throughout eternity as if in a coma or catatonic state?

Infant baptismal regeneration for the removal of original sin. This false doctrine was made necessary to prevent the impression that God is not just and loving. How could a just and loving God send innocent babies to hell? Surely, babies have no sin of their own. Babies will not go to hell if their parents get them baptized. The only way an innocent baby can be considered guilty is by the imputation of Adam’s guilt. Try to find this Roman Catholic doctrine in your Bible. Many Bible believers, in the past, were put to death by the Roman Catholic Church for rejecting this doctrine.

The dogma that men have lost the image of God since the fall of Adam.But scripture says the opposite throughout. You and I have the image and likeness of God in us. Granted, it is very hard to see at times.

Physical passive regeneration is another false doctrine that flows out of the belief in the dogma of Original Sin. If mankind can’t do anything to save themselves, then God is the only active agent in regeneration. We are passive in regeneration. When God regenerates us based entirely on His election, our sinful nature gets a new competing nature from God that is not totally depraved, but nearly so. Passive physical regeneration is essential because sin is inherent in our blood and DNA. But we all know that sin is a wicked choice and has nothing to do with our physical substance.

This false teaching on Original Sin claims that being born with a sinful nature means you can only sin and lack the ability to repent, believe in Christ, or obey God’s commands. Despite this, you are still blameworthy and guilty for not obeying God’s law, even though it is impossible for you to do so. This reasoning is simply foolish. 

Arbitrary election and reprobation are implied in the Original Sin dogma. God must elect or choose you to be saved because you have no ability at all to save yourself. If you are not the elect of God, then you will not go to heaven. God could have elected all to salvation, but chose to pass over the majority of humanity and let them go to hell for His Glory. Impossible!

Man does not have free will if the doctrine of Original Sin is true. If we are born unable to obey, believe, and repent, then we are not autonomous agents. We do not possess free will. This is something very few of us would accept, because we know through our consciousness that our wills are free to choose between sin and holiness, God and self, and love and hate. Augustine first defined free will as the ability to choose whether to obey or disobey God. We choose to sin or to be righteous, and we decide whether to do good or bad. If the dogma of Original Sin is true, then we do not have a choice or free will. By definition, we have a will in complete captivity that can do nothing but sin. In other words, we have a will that is a slave to sin. That is a will that is not free.

If Original Sin is true, then actual sin is not a free and voluntary choice but is the result of a depraved nature that we inherit from Adam. Remember, Augustine was greatly influenced by the heathen ideas prevalent in his day.

If Original Sin and a sin nature are actual, then matter is evil. And sin is a substance. The Apostle John denounced those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh (matter) as deceivers and antichrists. Some taught and believed that matter (flesh) was sinful in itself; therefore, there is no way that sinless Jesus (God) was a real man like us. To deny Jesus’s deity and His humanity is a significant error and a damnable lie. It makes that person an antichrist.

What else is profoundly wrong with what Augustine believed and taught? (Some repetition follows because it is so vital when considering Augustine’s impact on the Christian world.)

1. As mentioned already, Augustine’s greatest false teaching was this. “He, beyond all others, formulated the doctrine of salvation by the Church only, by means of her sacraments. To take salvation out of the hands of the Savior and put it into the hands of men; to interpose a system of man’s devising between the Savior and the sinner, is the very opposite of the Gospel revelation. Christ says, “Come to Me” and no priest or church has the authority to intervene.” (From the book, The Pilgrim Church, by E. H. Broadbent, page 23).

But the Bible contradicts this completely. The “Church” or the visible religious organization does not save anyone. Only repentance and faith in Jesus Christ bring salvation. Jesus Christ is the Savior of sinful humanity, not the Roman Catholic Church or any other church organization. Sacraments do not save and are not a means of obtaining grace. Only the truth of the gospel saves. All grace comes from God to those who humble themselves and follow His way.

• Augustine was therefore much in favor of consolidating churches under one central authority of man. This led to the combining of church and state: one church and one state.The Roman Catholic Church draws on Augustine to support the primacy of the Pope and the concept of the one true church. The history of the Roman Catholic Church organization, after the death of Augustine, demonstrates the fatal error of this belief.

(The ‘church’ in scripture is the body of genuine believers in Jesus Christ, irrespective of what building or home they worship God in. Jesus is the head of the body, not the Pope or any man. We often use the word ‘Church’ to designate the denomination we belong to or the location of the building where we have services.

• Augustine was even led to the compelling of unity (by force if needed). “Such teaching, from such an authority, incited, and justified those methods of persecution by which Papal Rome equaled the cruelties of pagan Rome.” (Page 24 of Broadbent’s book). The Roman Catholic Church was an eager and faithful executioner of his ideas. Convert or die was a practice of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries.

          Augustine’s unbiblical and false theology created many miserable and wicked results. His teachings obscured the way of salvation and set in motion the demonic rule of the Roman Catholic Church organization that persecuted many millions of Bible-believing Christians for the next 1400 years! That is not the kind of fruit any of us should seek to emulate. His legacy is much different than what Sproul and many others would have us believe.

During the Apostle’s lifetime, the teachings of the Gnostics needed to be refuted. This sect tried to blend Christianity with pagan eastern religious beliefs, pagan philosophy, and mystical doctrines. Gnostics believed that matter or the flesh was evil; therefore, Jesus could not have incarnated in sinful flesh. From this teaching, Augustine developed the doctrine of Original Sin. For many years, Augustine was a disciple of the Manichaeans, which was a Gnostic sect. His teachings that our physical and moral nature, inherited from Adam, is sinful have their roots in Gnosticism.

         The end result of all this confusion and false teaching is more lost souls that Jesus died for. The number of Bible-believing Christians tortured and murdered over the centuries by the Roman Catholic Church organization, which Augustine helped set in motion, is staggering. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they closed off the kingdom of heaven to themselves and prevented others from entering through their false teachings and godless lives.

If you wonder about the unhealthy and very carnal state of the American Christian Church, look no further than these doctrines and beliefs. Being born with a sinful nature, we come into existence unable to do anything good. This inherited inability is the very best excuse for sin ever devised in the universe. Those who believe this are unlikely to make meaningful improvements in their lives.

What we believe determines what we do. If you think you will sin daily in thought, word, and deed, even with the grace of God and a new nature from God, you will never seriously try to stop sinning. 

It is physically impossible to be born a sinner because sin is not a substance (liquid, gas, or solid). The Bible teaches that sin is a transgression of the moral law, not a physical law. Sin is an immoral choice. Choice and substance are entirely different. One is voluntary and the other is not. We cannot choose to disregard physical laws, but we can choose to disobey moral laws. It is a moral impossibility to be born a sinner because sin requires choice and voluntariness.

If sin can be inherited, can righteousness be inherited?

If sin is a substance that can be inherited like a disease or virus, then goodness, kindness, and love are substances just like sin. But sin, wickedness, goodness, love, and kindness describe the character of a choice or action, not the substance of it. And neither sin nor holiness can be passed on physically or morally by heredity.

Was Augustine the greatest theologian of the first 1000 years?

Was he the greatest theologian of all time? R. C. Sproul believes so.  I can’t believe it. (Perhaps the better question is, “Was he the worst?”) God knows. Only men, even religious men, suggest such questions as to who is the greatest. Will we never learn?

 Do you remember when a few of the disciples were arguing about who was the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Jesus said to them that unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself as this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:2-4. Arguing about who is the greatest or the best suggests that you are not yet even converted, according to Jesus. Jesus said Get converted and become like a little child, and you will not concern yourself with such matters. Excellent advice from our LORD!