If original sin has always existed, then how could St. Augustine have changed it to mean every person is born with it? You are not making sense.
Furthermore, original sin is NOT an imputation. Rather, it is a deprivation. Hence, man must be born again (baptized). cf. John 3:5; Romans 6:4
I'm not making sense to you because you don't accept that Augustine CHANGED what O.S. is and means and how it should be "treated"....by baptizing babies as soon a possible or they'd go to hell.
Try asking your pastor/priest about this. It's a known fact.. I feel like I'm discussing with you whether or not water is wet.
Augustine CHANGED the understanding of O.S. and taught it was IMPUTED and it was accepted by the church. Why, I'll never understand. He's also reponsible for predestination and Calvinism since John Calvin referred back to him.
BERFORE Augustine, the church believed man was affected by OS.
AFTER Augustine the church believed man is imputed with it.
Having been IMPUTED with it...it now became NECESSARY that babies be baptized asap.
I'm not discussing baptism here...babies were always baptized, but it was a choice.....
After HIM it was no longer a choice but a necessity.
Partially true. There was considerable debate in the early Church as to when babies should be baptized. Some argued for the eighth day, as baptism was seen as the fulfillment of circumcision. Circumcision incorporated the child into the Boyd of Israel; baptism incorporates the child into the Boyd of the new Israel: the Church. (cf. Col 2:11-12). Others, influenced by Novatianism, argued for baptism to be delayed.
Nonetheless, the Church has always held that baptism is necessary for salvation. (cf. John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21)
I'm NOT discussing the above... Forget about baptism itself.
What you've stated above is true.
Do you understand that since it was DEBATED, it wasn't understood to be NECESSARY for babies?
Augustine's understanding of baptism of babies is the Church's understanding. Here are his words:
“It was not I who devised the original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are in the devil's power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in Christ.” - St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:25
Augustine's understanding is the church's understanding.
Right. NOW, AFTER HIM.
What did the church believe BEFORE HIM?
You are conflating Protestant "dedication" ceremonies with the Church's understanding and hence reason for the baptism of children. The Church doesn't baptize babies to bless them, but rather to make them born again and hence remove original sin and restore them to a life of grace.
Are you seriously telling me the above?
I'll just make believe you never said it.
The Church has never formally declared the fate of unbaptized babies because God never revealed their fate. St. Augustine held to a fundamentalist view, as he saw no exceptions to Christ's command that men must be born again. Others throughout the ages have had their own theolegoumenon. But that's all they are, opinions.
This is incorrect.
The church has always stated that infants that were not baptized did NOT go to heaven. Why do you think it commanded that babies be born immediate?
It's only NOW, after VAT II that the church has taken back its claim and stated that we cannot know what happens if an infant is not baptized but we depend on the mercy of God.
This is in the CCC....I'm not posting it because it's better if you look for it yourself.
Again, the Church has never formally declared the fate of babies. Any opinions on it were just that, opinions (theologoumenon). Augustine was certainly in the fundamentalist camp, finding no exceptions to Christ's command.
Incorrect.
Exactly. These articulate the Catholic understanding of baptism. For example...
CCC1250: Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
CCC1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
I'm sure you understand that the CCC which you quote above is from 1992,,,many years AFTER VAT II.
I stated above it's been changed..there is more on this BTW in the CCC.
Please find out what the church believed BEFORE VAT II.
Not sure why you posted this, as it refutes your argument that the concept of original sin and the necessity of baptism originated with Augustine.
The way you worded the above shows me that you've totally misunderstood everything I've been saying.
OS did NOT ORIGINATE with Augustine...it was already in existence. He CHANGED the meaning of it.
It was NOT necessary to baptize babies or BEFORE him because the chuch did NOT believe that unbaptized babies went to hell.
It only became necessary AFTER him because of the church's acceptance of HOW HE understood OS to be imputed to every man born.
I'm not one to continue arguing forever.
Please ask someone else you trust and that knows church history. Ask how OS was understood BEFORE and AFTER Augustine. Ask WHY babies were baptized BEFORE and AFTER Augsutine.
