The Origins of Augustine’s Theology on Concupiscence, Massa Damnata and Limbo in light of Early Christian, Gnostic, Manichaean, (Neo-)Platonic,... Sources (original) (raw)
Related papers
The article focuses on the question: Was Julian of Eclanum (c. 380-454) right in accusing Augustine (354-430) of still being a Manichaean, based on his view of sexual concupiscence and the transmission of (original) sin? In order to find an answer to this (still hotly debated) question, first a sketch of Augustine’s acquaintance with Manichaeism is provided. After that follows the (first ever) overview of the Manichaean doctrines of the origin of sexual concupiscence, its distinctive features, and its role in the transmission of sin. The third part of the article focuses on the essentials of Augustine’s views of sexual concupiscence and the transmission of original sin, in particular as they were expounded (and further developed) in his controversy with the ‘Pelagian’ bishop, Julian of Eclanum. It is concluded that, in particular, Augustine’s stress on the ‘random motion’ (motus inordinatus) as typical of the sinfulness of the sexual concupiscence is strikingly similar to the Manichaean views. Here, then, Julian seems to be right. Finally, some preliminary remarks are made on early Jewish and Jewish-Christian views of sexual concupiscence and (original) sin which may have influenced not only Mani and his followers, but also Augustine and his precursors in the tradition of Roman North Africa.
2020
This essay focuses on the question: Was Julian of Eclanum (c. 380-454) right in accusing Augustine of still being a Manichaean, based on his view of sexual concupiscence and the transmission of (original) sin? In order to find an answer to this (still hotly debated) question, a sketch of Augustine's acquaintance with Manichaeism is first provided. Thereafter follows the (first ever) overview of the Manichaean doctrines of the origin of sexual concupiscence, its distinctive features, and its role in the transmission of sin. The third part of the article focuses on the essentials of Augustine's views of sexual concupiscence and the transmission of original sin, in particular as they were expounded (and further developed) in his dispute with the 'Pelagian' bishop, Julian of Eclanum. It is concluded that, in particular, Augustine's stress on the 'random motion' (motus inordinatus) as typical of the sinfulness of the sexual concupiscence is strikingly similar to the Manichaean views on the subject. In this respect, then, Julian seems to be right. Finally, some preliminary remarks are made on early Jewish and Jewish-Christian views of sexual concupiscence and (original) sin which may have influenced not only Mani and his followers, but also Augustine and his precursors in the tradition of Roman North Africa.
St. Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin
Augustinian Studies, 2010
This paper is an exposition of St. Augustine’s account of original sin, which I argue is composed of five somewhat independent doctrines. In brief, his view is that all human beings participated in Adam and Eve’s primal sin, and thus inherit a common guilt and a constitutional fault, as well as a penalty. Augustine is not clear about how to understand human solidarity with the first couple, and he is divided in his ideas about how sin is inherited. He is confident, however, that human solidarity with the primal sin leads to a universal penalty of mortality and weakness that, though evil, is not itself sin, as well as further sin: an inborn constitutional fault that Augustine calls carnal concupiscence (meaning “disordered love”).
This article explores the significance of the term unigenitus (only-begotten) in Augustine's anti-Manichaean writings. By examining his deployment of the term alongside language of substance or nature and in juxtaposition with the related christological title primogenitus (firstborn), I will show that Augustine's anti-Manichaean use of unigenitus draws upon a pro-Nicene reading of the word that he adopts from his Latin Catholic forebears, especially the anti-Homoian authors of the late 350 s and early 360 s. Awareness of this pro-Nicene, anti-Manichaean dynamic allows us to see how Augustine's growing awareness of and familiarity with the depth of the pro-Nicene tradition facilitated his construction of a 'Catholic self', as Jason BeDuhn has recently put it. Yet, I argue, to see how Augustine seeks to overwrite his prior religious identity, we must attend carefully to the christological and trinitarian polemics (eschewed by BeDuhn) that shaped the Catholic discourse he inherited, and to the way they provided the tools for the dismantling of the Manichaean mythos through the proclamation of an alternative, pro-Nicene view of God, Christ, and creation.
Augustine, Akrasia, and Manichaeism
American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 151-169. This paper examines Augustine's analysis of the possible causes of akrasia and suggests that an implicit two-phased consent process takes place in an akratic decision. This two-phased consent theory revolves around Augustine's theory of the two wills, one carnal and the other spiritual. Without the help of grace, the fallen will dominated by the carnal will can only choose to sin. After exploration of this two-phased consent theory, the paper turns to examine the accusation made by Julian of Eclanum, a fifth-century Pelagian, and J. Van Oort, a contemporary Augustinian scholar, that Augustine's doctrine of the two wills and concupiscence led the Church into a Manichaean position. The paper concludes that this accusation fails to hold up, especially when one considers the more nuanced view on the human body and concupiscence in Augustine's later works.