Signs of an Augustinian Original Sin in Milan? The Origin and Nature of Human Sin According to Ambrose

Anthony Dupont
{"title":"Signs of an Augustinian Original Sin in Milan? The Origin and Nature of Human Sin According to Ambrose","authors":"Anthony Dupont","doi":"10.1093/jts/flad042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ambrose’s conception of sin is seldom studied. When it is, scholars often regard Ambrose’s thinking as an imperfect preparation for that of his best-known pupil, Augustine of Hippo. The present article redresses this oversight by investigating Ambrose’s conception of sin in its own right. The starting point for Ambrose’s hamartiology is his belief in the personal choice of the will. On several occasions, he attributes the Fall in Eden entirely to human responsibility. Because of this first sin, Adam and Eve lost their potential for perfect virtue and immortality. Adam’s sin, moreover, had consequences for all humankind: mortality, the loss of godlikeness, and the dissemination of a tendency to sin being chief among them. Ambrose’s reflections on Christian baptism provide an important litmus test for his thinking about the impact of Adamic sin. What exactly does baptism erase? According to the Milanese catechist, baptism erases primarily individual sins. Though Ambrose accepts the pernicious impact of Adam’s sin, we argue that his doctrine of (original) sin may not be accurately considered proto-Augustinian. Unlike Augustine’s view, here it is not Adam’s sin per se that humankind has inherited, but rather a general tendency to sin. Ambrose also never speaks of inherited guilt, but of a contamination. Finally, Ambrose always tries to balance the negative influence of original sin with his belief in individual choice and his programme of moral improvement for all Christians.","PeriodicalId":213560,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Theological Studies","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Theological Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flad042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Ambrose’s conception of sin is seldom studied. When it is, scholars often regard Ambrose’s thinking as an imperfect preparation for that of his best-known pupil, Augustine of Hippo. The present article redresses this oversight by investigating Ambrose’s conception of sin in its own right. The starting point for Ambrose’s hamartiology is his belief in the personal choice of the will. On several occasions, he attributes the Fall in Eden entirely to human responsibility. Because of this first sin, Adam and Eve lost their potential for perfect virtue and immortality. Adam’s sin, moreover, had consequences for all humankind: mortality, the loss of godlikeness, and the dissemination of a tendency to sin being chief among them. Ambrose’s reflections on Christian baptism provide an important litmus test for his thinking about the impact of Adamic sin. What exactly does baptism erase? According to the Milanese catechist, baptism erases primarily individual sins. Though Ambrose accepts the pernicious impact of Adam’s sin, we argue that his doctrine of (original) sin may not be accurately considered proto-Augustinian. Unlike Augustine’s view, here it is not Adam’s sin per se that humankind has inherited, but rather a general tendency to sin. Ambrose also never speaks of inherited guilt, but of a contamination. Finally, Ambrose always tries to balance the negative influence of original sin with his belief in individual choice and his programme of moral improvement for all Christians.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
米兰出现奥古斯丁原罪的迹象?安布罗斯认为人类罪恶的起源和本质
摘要安布罗斯的罪观很少被研究。即使是这样,学者们也常常认为安布罗斯的思想是对他最著名的学生——河马的奥古斯丁的思想的不完善的准备。本文通过调查安布罗斯对罪的概念来纠正这种疏忽。安布罗斯的伤害学的出发点是他对个人意志选择的信仰。有几次,他把伊甸园的堕落完全归咎于人类的责任。因为这第一次罪,亚当和夏娃失去了完美美德和不朽的潜力。此外,亚当的罪对全人类都有影响:死亡,失去神性,以及罪恶倾向的传播在人类中占据主导地位。安布罗斯对基督教洗礼的反思为他思考亚当罪的影响提供了一个重要的试金石。洗礼到底能抹去什么?根据米兰教理师的说法,洗礼主要是消除个人的罪恶。虽然安布罗斯接受亚当罪的有害影响,但我们认为他的(原罪)教义可能不被准确地认为是原始奥古斯丁的。与奥古斯丁的观点不同,这里人类继承的不是亚当的罪本身,而是一种普遍的犯罪倾向。安布罗斯也从不说遗传的罪恶感,而是一种污染。最后,安布罗斯总是试图平衡原罪的负面影响,以及他对个人选择的信仰和他对所有基督徒道德改善的计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Prosōpon of Jesus’ Soul in Origen’s Homilies on Psalm 15 (16) The Independent Works of Luke: Further Evidence on the Early Christian Reception of Luke and Acts Theology of the Book of Proverbs. By Katharine J. Dell Gerhard von Rad and the Study of Wisdom Literature. Edited by Timothy J. Sandoval and Bernd U. Schipper The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity. By Jason A. Staples
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1