The Orthodox Church over centuries has either explicitly or implicitly taught the unbaptized are damned. To quote Saint Augustine, or his disciple Saint Prosper of Aquataine, on this point specifically would be superfluous for two reasons. For one, their teaching on the topic is so frequent and emphatic that no single quote would do it justice. Second, due to the teaching’s connection to Augustine (though Augustine took it for granted that everyone affirmed it in a letter to Saint Jerome), their witness would be ignored despite the fact that as saints their testimony is that of the Church itself.
To help get another perspective, as follows is a short list of saints and authoritative treatments of the subject, discussing the issue from different angles. My hope is to bring out the teaching of the Church from an angle that will make it more acceptable to those who find it hard to stomach Her teachings.n
Saint Ambrose:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God [St. John 3:5]. Surely, He exempts none, not even the infant, not one hindred by any necessity: but although they have a hidden immunity to punishments, I know not whether* they have the honour of the Kingdom. (On Abraham, Book 2, Par 84; p. 100 in Tomkinson’s translation; *in other translations “whether” is rendered “how,” which makes more sense given the previous sentence but less sense in the Latin–original Latin for the last sentence is: nescio an habeant regni honorem as found on PL 14, p. 497)
Saint Gregory Nanzianzen
Others are not in a position to receive it [baptism], perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish…..[They] will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. (Oration 40, Par 23; Note: The topic of unbaptized children is inferred by some interpreters, but a better interpretation is that Gregory is primarily speaking of the fate of catechumens/interested people where circumstances prevent their baptisms before death. See discussion starting at Par 18.)
Synod of Diapolis (415)
Sundry other points of error were next alleged against him [Pelagius], connected with the mention of my own name [Augustine]. They had been transmitted to me from Sicily, some of our Catholic brethren there being perplexed by questions of this kind; and I drew up a reply to them in a little work addressed to Hilary, who had consulted me respecting them in a letter. My answer, in my opinion, was a sufficient one. These are the errors referred to: “That a man is able to be without sin if he wishes. That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life. That rich men, even if they are baptized, unless they renounce all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done, nothing of it reckoned to them; neither can they possess the kingdom of God.” The following, as the proceedings testify, was Pelagius’ own answer to these charges against him: “Concerning a man’s being able indeed to be without sin, we have spoken, says he, already; concerning the fact, however, that before the Lord’s coming there were persons without sin, we say now that, previous to Christ’s advent, some men lived holy and righteous lives, according to the teaching of the sacred Scriptures. The rest were not said by me, as even their testimony goes to show, and for them, I do not feel that I am responsible. But for the satisfaction of the holy synod, I anathematize those who either now hold, or have ever held, these opinions.” After hearing this answer of his, the synod [of Diapolis] said: “With regard to these charges aforesaid, Pelagius has in our presence given us sufficient and proper satisfaction, by anathematizing the opinions which were not his.” (On the Proceedings of Pelagius, Chap 23-24)
Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos
We should also know that when baptized infants die, they enjoy the Paradise of delight, whereas those not illumined by Baptism and those born of pagans go neither to Paradise nor to Gehenna. (Synaxarion Saturday Before Meatfare Sunday)
Council of Jerusalem, Confession of Dositheus (1672)
We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission…And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. (Decree 16)
Note: The same decree in Saint Filaret of Moscow’s modified translation, one deliberately altered to exmphasize his own thought/interpretaion of doctrine, is even more clear on the question stating:
If infants need to be saved, then they also need to be baptized. And those who have not been reborn and therefore have not received remission in the sin of their parents are necessarily subject to eternal punishment for this sin and therefore are not saved. So babies need need baptism. (Decree 16)
Saint Nicolai of Zica
How then are considered the parents who carelessly let their little ones die unbaptised? As the killers of their own children. (Catechism, p. 49)
Saint Justin Popovic
The baptism of children, in which the recipient on behalf of the children is denied from Satan, testifies that the children are under original sin, for they are born with a nature corrupted by sin, enslaved by Satan. “And the very sufferings of children happen not because of their personal sins, but are the manifestation of the punishment that the righteous God pronounced over human nature that fell in Adam.” In Adam, human nature is corrupted by sin, subjected to death and righteously condemned, therefore all people are born from Adam in the same state. Sinful damage from Adam passes on to all his descendants through conception and birth, therefore everyone is subject to this primordial sinfulness (originis vitio), but it does not destroy in people their freedom to desire and do good and the ability for a grace-filled rebirth. (Dogmatics, Volume 2, Chap 39:3)
Dumitru Staniloae the Confessor
If it is baptism that, through the union with Christ, does away with the substance of that original sin that separated us from God and was stamped upon our very nature, and if, apart from this union with Christ, there is no entry into the Kingdom of God, then it is clear that baptism is absolutely necessary for our salvation (John 3:3). It is also absolutely necessary for children, for they too, through their birth in the flesh, share in this same state of separation from God, and so they too must pass over from the condition of their bodily birth and their destiny to perdition into the condition of those born of water and the Spirit and, consequently, of the saved (John 3:5-6). Insofar as no one is clean of defilement even if his earthly life lasts only a single day (Job 14:4), children too clearly share in this stain, not through their own personal sin but through their birth. (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Volume 5, p. 51)
New Martyr Daniel Sysoev:
According to the Lord, all the unbaptized, except for those who were executed for Christ’s sake, will go to hades…As for innocent infants, there is simply no such thing. Every man has a distorted will from the moment of conception. Every man joins the devil’s “mafia” by virtue of his birth, and it is this that made necessary the sacrifice of Christ, which acts in us through baptism, so that infants also might be saved.,,,The homilies of St. Gregory pertain only to unbaptized infants, but even these do not presuppose their salvation. (Letters, p. 16, 18, 20)
In the eyes of God both you and every infant are sinners, and if you do not receive baptism you will go to hades. (Letters, p. 143)
What happens after death to people who do not were baptized? They are going to hell, there is no other way for them. Christ descended into hell only once – on Holy Saturday – and freed those people who lived before His birth, but looking for Him. All the people who don’t want to come to Christ, perish forever….There is no salvation without baptism. If you take the position of J.J. Russo, who believed that children are a clean slate, then, of course, the death of children (without a baptism) would be extremely unjust. But Scripture says that there is not one righteous one. After baptism the grace of God washes away all sins by repentance…In the moment of birth, even of conception, a person enters into an alliance, between Adam and the devil, and becomes a sinner with the very beginning. There is no such thing as “sinless baby.” (Lectures on Dogmatic Theology Missionary Edition, p. 24, 172, 174)
Hades is a kind of underground into which people who have fallen into sin go, and to this day, all of the unbaptized, without exception, wind up there. (Instructions for the Immortal, p. 7)
Sinners and unbaptized go to Hades, where with dread they await punishment. During this time the baptized may yet receive relief by the prayers of the Church. (The Law of God, p. 28; cf p. 143-144)
From the preceding quotations the following can be surmised:
- The unbaptized are “subject to eternal punishment.”
- Whatever this punishment is, it is not a “painful punishment.”
- Before the second coming of Christ, the unbaptized are in Hades. Those who remain in Hades will not be in Paradise at the second coming.
Being that the preceding covers two millennia of Church history and a wide array of sources from individual fathers, hagiographic, and conciliar (with the Council of Jerusalem being Pan-Orthodox and authoritative), this would seem to settle the issue. Perhaps the one father who may disagree with the preceding consensus is Saint Ephraim the Syrian (cf Hymns on Paradise, Hymn 10:13), though it would be pious to interpret the vague statement to be in line with the more explicit statements on the topic–not the other way around. The conclusion one is forced to draw, to the chagrin of many, vindicates Augustine.
It is then with the greatest of irony that Augustine himself comes to “save the day” as he actually offers teachings, consistent with what was just quoted, that both explain and resolve the tension that exists due to the unbaptized normatively not being saved. Augustine, in fact, offers a theological rationale that provides hope.
First, the “punishment” for the unbaptized is “not bad” and preferable to non-existence. In other words, it is not Heaven/Paradise (an experience of God), but it is not a painful or even neutral experience of Hades/Hell. It is pleasant in some natural way:
I do not say that children who die without baptism of Christ will undergo such grievous punishment that it were better for them never to have been born, since our Lord did not say these words of any sinner you please, but only the most base and ungodly…who can doubt that non-baptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say that it were better for them to never have existed than to exist there. (Against Julian, Book V, Par 44)
It would seem the only “punishment” for unbaptized infants is not having a relationship and synergy with God. Nevertheless, it appears, they will not be deprived of natural goods. This is akin (though obviously not the same as) the circle of the righteous pagans in Dante’s Inferno. A chill, nice place to hang out. Good company. It’s just not heaven.
Second, there are unbaptized infants that are saved if they have been baptized by blood/implicit desire. Augustine discusses this in one of his earliest works if one pays attention to his logic on the issue of what happens to unbaptized children:
Not even the leaf of a tree is created without a purpose. It is, however, purposeless [of my detractors] to ask about the merits of one who has gained no merit. We need not fear that there may be a life halfway between virtue and vice, a sentence of the Judge halfway between reward and punishment. (The Problem of Free Choice, Book 3, Chap 66)
But God does good in correcting adults when their children whom they love suffer pain and death. Why should this not be done, since, when the suffering is past it is as nothing to those who endured it? Those…for whose sake this has happened will either be better men if they make use of the temporal ills and choose to live better lives or they will have no excuse when they are punished at the future judgement, if in spite of the sufferings of this life they refuse to turn their hearts to eternal life?…[W]hen the hearts of parents are softened by the sufferings of children, or when their faith is stirred, or their pity aroused, who knows what ample compensation God reserves for these children in the secrets of His judgments? They have not, it is true, performed right actions, yet they have suffered without having sinned. Nor is it to no purpose the Church urges us to honor as martyrs the children who were slain when Herod sought the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ibid., Chap 68)
In the preceding, Augustine teaches two things. First, there are those who are unbaptized that do not attain to heaven, but neither suffer in the afterlife. However, on top of this, Augustine affirms that there are those unbaptized children who die, but their deaths have some positive effect on the faith of others (this is morbid, but one must follow the logic of what is presented). This being the case, they may attain to salvation like the 5,000 martyred innocents.
The importance of this is that even without the explicit consent of the will, that by partaking in a Christological reality (though being innocent they die for the sake of others, particularly the guilty) the 5,000 innocents have an implicit faith which results in heavenly reward. As the Life of the Virgin ascribed to Saint Maximus notes on this topic: “These heroes and martyrs, age-mates of Christ who unknowingly were knowers of the truth before reaching maturity.” (Chap 44) This is an absolutely central Christian teaching, as God does not arbitrarily flip a switch to save some and not others–some unbaptized and not others.
Why? The atonement of Jesus Christ, potentially, can save everyone. This would include all the unrepentant, let alone unbaptized. So, why doesn’t it? Saint Filaret of Moscow teaches succinctly:
[Christ] offered himself as a sacrifice strictly for all, and obtained for all grace and salvation; but this benefits only those of us who, for their parts, of their own free will, have fellowship in his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death…We have fellowship in the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ through a lively and hearty faith, through the Sacraments, in which is contained and sealed the virtue of his saving sufferings and death, and, lastly, through the crucifixion of our flesh with its affections and lusts. (Longer Catechism, Questions 209-210)
Those unbaptized who in some way were “made conformable unto his death” having “fellowship in the sufferings” of the Lord, with implicit faith (with a will now shaped by the experience), can participate in the atonement. Contrariwise, those who are unrepentant and willfully reject Christ, reject such sufferings and death. They have a human energy/activity and will which rejects God and, divinity being synonymous with grace itself, thereby reject grace and salvation. One would expect that the unbaptized who do not participate in any Christological reality (pertaining to the synergy necessary for the atonement) thereby close themselves off from grace, though without the willfulness of rejecting God. They therefore do not manifest a resistance to grace that results in eternal suffering.
Augustine’s speculations, spectacularly, sum up the full gamut of Orthodox thought on the topic.
Closing thoughts. Far too often, people discuss this topic in a way that does not do justice to the theological tradition of the Church. They claim “God is unfair” if He “punishes innocent babies,” but they do not explain how He would be. Nor do they explain exactly what this punishment is or why/how human beings undergo punishment to begin with. Additionally, they seem to think God can arbitrarily flip a salvation switch, thereby rejecting the Orthodox doctrine of the atonement.
The teaching of the Church does not reduce itself to an “unbaptized babies roast in Hell” sort of reductionism. In fact, the Church has explicitly rejected this. Rather, the Church has preserved the teaching that mankind is fallen in sin and needs to be saved through faith and baptism. The Lord teaches, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) One must be sure of this. An answer to the perennial question that provides for the “unbaptized” children some sort of baptism by blood or desire is the only answer that can (normatively) work. As for when this applies, one must leave it to God to decide.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
‘They claim “God is unfair” if He “punishes innocent babies,”’
I claim God is unfair if He saves all baptised babies (not all baptised adults are saved). I also do not think all circumcised infants are saved.
“And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission”
What is one believes salvation is not due to remission of hereditary sin but remission of commited sin?
I don’t think a strong case can be made from Holy Scripture that water immersion is for “original sin”.
Actually, an incredibly strong case can be made that baptism is for the remission of original sin. I’m currently working on an article that goes into detail on this, but here are the cliffnotes:
The curses of Genesis 3 are laced into the purity laws of Leviticus 11-15. Just as ritual impurity is a kind of “contagious sin” that spreads to even children, so is original sin. This is why, in Psalm 51, David uses language that’s almost exclusive to Leviticus; and he says, “I was conceived in iniquity.” Importantly, one of the main ways to cleanse ritual impurity was with water, as David says, “wash me thoroughly.”
Another kind of contagious sin we see is in Deuteronomy-Joshua, when the “little children” of Canaan are executed due to their contamination as Nephilim. The conquest has countless echoes of the Flood narrative (“everything that breathes” is killed), which obviously took place through a great washing. Once again, contagious sin is cleansed through water.
In the NT, St. John structured his Gospel to follow the order of furniture in the Tabernacle. When we get to John 3, we’ve arrived at the bronze basin, which is where priests had to *wash themselves* in order to cleanse any ritual impurity they had. This already suggests that baptism is going to wiping away the ultimate ritual impurity-original sin. Then Revelation confirms this when it says that nothing ritually *impure* will enter the new Jerusalem.
Like original sin, ritual impurity was not a sin you were necessarily responsible for, rather it was an objectively fallen state that kept you outside of God’s presence. This is why those who aren’t cleansed in baptism, do not “enter” the heavenly city. Baptismal regeneration, as it pertains to original sin, is totally biblical.
“In the NT, St. John structured his Gospel to follow the order of furniture in the Tabernacle.”
Could you elaborate on this? I have never heard of this theory before
See https://www.circeinstitute.org/blog/walk-through-tabernacle
“Peter was the first to enter the tomb, for he was the new High Priest.”
I don’t see how Peter is the new Caiaphas… or that there should be any earthly high priest now that we have a heavenly high priest.
This is delving off in irrelevant directions. Send me a DM on twitter if you have further issue: https://twitter.com/GenealogyOfAdam
St. Augustine later rejected his early views on baptism of desire:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15083.htm (Chapters XII and XIII)
So with St. Augustine out of the picture, I don’t know of any Church Father that affirmed baptism of desire even as a theologumenon. Even St. Ambrose, in his funeral oration for emperor Valentinian, is far from explicitly affirming it, as is usually claimed. And, on the contrary, St. Gregory the Theologian explicitly rejects it:
“XXII. But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches out our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God’s mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom. I will, however, speak out boldly my opinion on these matters; and I think that all other sensible men will range themselves on my side.
(…)
And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?”
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm
So when Satyrus died, according to St Ambrose, how was he baptized? That should answer your conjecture.
On Satyrus:
“For he preserved the gifts of holy baptism inviolate, being pure in body and still more pure in heart; fearing not less the shame of impurity in conversation than in his body; and thinking that no less regard was to be paid to modesty in purity of words than in chastity of body.”
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34031.htm
As for Valentinian II, his recent conversion to Orthodoxy and his murder at the hands of the pagan Arbogastes are, I think, grounds to interpret St. Ambrose’s words as reflecting his hope that the young emperor had fulfilled his desire by being baptized in his blood:
(51) But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request?* But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified his desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wisdom 4:7).
(52) Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to Thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected … He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace?
(53) Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.”
Even if this plausible reading is not very convincing to you, consider that St. Ambrose also wrote in On the Mysteries:
“20. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.”
But, supposing that St. Ambrose did, indeed, affirm baptism of desire, I remind you of St. Vincent of Lerins’ words against those who claim to have the support of ancient writers (in this case, just one of them) to defend their erroneous innovations. Baptism of desire is not affirmed or even remotely suggested by our most authoritative dogmatic statements on the topic (and in fact, it seems to contradict them), nor can one say that it represents the consensus patrum:
“Our catechumens are also worthy of pity if, either through their own unbelief or through the negligence of their neighbors, they die without saving baptism.” (St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death, 2: http://www.odinblago.ru/sv_otci/ioann_zlatoust/6_2/8 )
“Whoever believed, but was not baptized, being still a catechumen, was not yet saved” (Blessed Theophylact: http://bible.optina.ru/new:mk:16:15 )
Met. Macarius of Moscow’s Dogmatic Theology (19th century) expresses the absolute necessity of Baptism and the equal value of Baptism by blood, but doesn’t mention Baptism of desire: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Makarij_Bulgakov/pravoslavno-dogmaticheskoe-bogoslovie-tom2/23#note973_return
Par 43: He, before being initiated in the more perfect mysteries, being in danger of shipwreck when the ship that bore him, dashed upon rocky shallows, was being broken up by the waves tossing it hither and there, fearing not death but lest he should depart this life without the Mystery, asked of those whom he knew to be initiated the divine Sacrament of the faithful; not that he might gaze on secret things with curious eyes, but to obtain aid for his faith. For he caused it to be bound in a napkin, and the napkin round his neck, and so cast himself into the sea, not seeking a plank loosened from the framework of the ship, by floating on which he might be rescued, for he sought the means of faith alone. And so believing that he was sufficiently protected and defended by this, he sought no other aid.
This quote has nothing to do with BoD. Read par 52 again.
Luke 23:39-43 “39 One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding[i] him and saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into[k] your kingdom.” 43 He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
It is clear to me that baptism of desire is valid, and St Augustine’s excuse that the good thief may have been baptised before is a very weak one for which there is no scriptural basis.
Thomas Aquinas said: ” ….. the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire; for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that works by charity, whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen, ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate, but he did not lose the grace he prayed for’” (Summa Theologia III:68:2, cf. III:66:11–12).”
Here’ a small selection (in Russian) of Fathers who affirmed that the Good Thief did receive an actual Baptism.
https://azbyka.ru/way/o-kreshhenii-blagorazumnogo-razbojnika/
Can’t read Russian I’m afraid. On what basis do they affirm this?
They go to Heaven, because there is no gnomic will to sin by themselves, and they have no ancestral sin, so they are born in light. I will not go with many Fathers, but just one, a pillar of the Church. St. John Chrisostom, in Homily 9:3 on Matthew says:
“But what kind of sin had these children, it may be said, that they should do it away? For touching those who are of full age, and have been guilty of many negligences, one might with show of reason speak thus: but they who so underwent premature death, what sort of sins did they by their sufferings put away? Did you not hear me say, that though there were no sins, there is a recompense of rewards hereafter for them that suffer ill here? Wherein then were the young children hurt in being slain for such a cause, and borne away speedily into that waveless harbor?”
St. John of Damascus has a definition for this heresy, that unbaptized children go in hell. St. Gregory of Nyssa also says that they go to heaven. 🙂
This is heretical. Canon 110 of Carthage says all infants ate baptized for the remission of sins. Period. They have gnomic will and are fallen. St John of Damascus does not concur with you and neither does St Gregory of Nyssa. The latter I have covered in some detail here. I wish you the best!
http://www.oodegr.com/english/swthria/nipia2.htm
Here is what Gregory of Nyssa says.
And if st. John Chrisostom too is heretic, here are big problem.
This is what St Gregory of Nyssa says. https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/category/gregory-of-nyssa/ As for your other replies, if you are going to say canons of the Church are wrong, setting up yourself above the canons, that ends the conversation. We cannot entertain such notions and call ourselves Orthodox. St John Chrysostom is not even mentioned in that article.
https://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin
“Ancestral sin has a specific meaning. The Greek word for sin in this case, amartema, refers to an individual act indicating that the Eastern Fathers assigned full responsibility for the sin in the Garden to Adam and Eve alone. The word amartia, the more familiar term for sin which literally means “missing the mark”, is used to refer to the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002). The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death. (I Corinthians 15:21) “Man is born with the parasitic power of death within him,” writes Fr. Romanides (2002, p. 161). Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became “diseased…through the sin of one” (Migne, 1857-1866a). It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease.”
Little babies have no sins. It is very strange that someone like you thinks children go to hell.
St. John Chrisostom said that in his book Homily 9 on Matthew, about those 14 000 enfants who were killed…
Anyway, this is the end of conversation for sure. Wish you the best too! 🙂
So does Augustine in the article, an the explanation is given.
And about the canon that are sometimes opposite with the Church Fathers is not something new. Baptism is said to be done by immersion, but Canon 66/68 of Carthage (419) says to receive schismatics only through imposition of hands, contrar to what st. Cyprian decide before in the same city 200 years before. So, there is no 100% that canons are the last word of Christ. It is just a measure.
The decree from the council of Jerusalem when translated into Russian was rendered as such:
Веруем, что Святое Крещение, заповеданное Господом и совершаемое во имя Святой Троицы, необходимо. Ибо без него никто не может спастись, как говорит Господь: «Аще кто не родится водою и духом, не может внити в Царствие Божие» (Иоан. 3, 5). Посему оно нужно и младенцам, ибо и они подлежат первородному греху и без крещения не могут получить отпущения сего греха. И Господь, показывая сие, сказал без всякого исключения, просто: «Кто не родится…» то есть по пришествии Спасителя Христа все, имеющие войти в Царство Небесное, должны возродиться. Если же младенцы имеют нужду в спасении, то имеют нужду и в крещении. А не возродившиеся и посему не получившие отпущения в прародительском грехе необходимо подлежат вечному наказанию за сей грех, и следовательно, не спасаются. Итак, младенцам необходимо нужно крещение. Притом младенцы спасаются, как говорится у Евангелиста Матфея, а не крестившийся не спасается. Следственно, младенцы необходимо должны креститься.
We believe that Holy Baptism, commanded by the Lord and performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, is necessary. For without it no one can be saved, as the Lord says: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Therefore, infants also need it, for they, too, are subject to original sin, and without baptism they cannot receive remission of this sin. And the Lord, showing this, said without any exception, simply: “Whoever is not born…” that is, after the coming of the Savior Christ, all those who have to enter the Kingdom of Heaven must be reborn. If infants need to be saved, then they also need to be baptized. And those who have not been reborn, and therefore have not received remission of their ancestral sin, are necessarily subject to eternal punishment for this sin, and therefore are not saved. So babies need need baptism. Moreover, babies are saved, as the Evangelist Matthew says, but the one who is not baptized is not saved. Therefore, infants need to be baptized.
1. St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm)
Chapter 21. The purpose for which God in His foreknowledge created persons who would sin and not repent.
“God in His goodness brought what exists into being out of nothing, and has foreknowledge of what will exist in the future. If, therefore, they were not to exist in the future, they would neither be evil in the future nor would they be foreknown. For knowledge is of what exists and foreknowledge is of what will surely exist in the future. For simple being comes first and then good or evil being. But if the very existence of those, who through the goodness of God are in the future to exist, were to be prevented by the fact that they were to become evil of their own choice, evil would have prevailed over the goodness of God. Wherefore God makes all His works good, but each becomes of its own choice good or evil. Although, then, the Lord said, Good were it for that man that he had never been born Mark 14:21, He said it in condemnation not of His own creation but of the evil which His own creation had acquired by his own choice and through his own heedlessness. For the heedlessness that marks man’s judgment made His Creator’s beneficence of no profit to him. It is just as if any one, when he had obtained riches and dominion from a king, were to lord it over his benefactor, who, when he has worsted him, will punish him as he deserves, if he should see him keeping hold of the sovereignty to the end.”
So we have this passage: “For simple being comes first and then good or evil being. But if the very existence of those, who through the goodness of God are in the future to exist, were to be prevented by the fact that they were to become evil of their own choice, evil would have prevailed over the goodness of God. Wherefore God makes all His works good, but each becomes of its own choice good or evil.”
Only with our choice we become evil… not simple by being, being is good, from God.
2. The Icon is named “Feasting with the three Patriarchs in Paradise (Nevyanskaya, c.1830s)”
On the top of the children, above their head is written: Those who are not baptized with the holly baptism.
Interesting thoughts. Here are three things that come to my mind:
1. Whatever interpretation of the fathers we come to must not throw other fathers, let alone councils, into contradiction. So we have to affirm the council of Jerusalem, and not with mere lip service, but actually embrace it’s teaching. Then we must ask ourselves, honestly, what is it teaching and would it be misleading for the council to be saying what it is saying and not be clearly conveying that being subject to punishment means the baptized are not saved? Wouldn’t the clear, unequivocal statements like the council offer us the guide to understanding vaguer ideas and vague notions in icons? Plus what more likely conveys the consensus of the Church, a council or prayer which the whole church affirms, or a vague passing statement or an icon with only local veneration? These are important questions.
2. God Himself states, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” (Gen 8:21) St Gregory Palamas states, “When Adam fell by turning aside from good to evil no one remained who was not inclined to evil.” (Homily 16:11) For this reason I the Damascene appears to be framed incorrectly. The Damascene teaches that the reason corruption and death exists is because of the passions, and men are all born with this–they would have to be in Christ for this to be corrected.
This is without getting into church canons that, if memory serves me right, literally state all the unbaptized are energized by demons which is why they are exorcised beforehand. And so we are not pelagians. We do not believe infants are blank slates and it’s in their own power to do good. Rather, they need grace to co-energize with God, without said co-operation there is no salvation. We energize with God or against Him with the demons. The latter obviously leads to Hell.
3. Would we know who the children are in the icon without the halos?
God bless
Craig
And one more:
1. St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 4, 19 (Of the Soul – https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm)
“And learn this also, that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed no sin , but having come in sinless, we now sin of our free-will.”
2. St. Gennadius of Constantinople (Romans — Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, NT Volume 6, p. 138)
AD 471
“Everyone in the following of Adam has died, because they have all inherited their nature from him. But some have died because they themselves have sinned, while others have died only because of Adam’s condemnation—for example, children.” All inherit his nature, not sin. And nature was saved by Christ, so children are good only because their nature.
So Christ became a second Adam, and by the guilt of first Adam every man goes to hell, even those who did not sin by themselves(infants), now, with the Lord begin a new creation, so the nature is rised again, and unborn and infants are by nature good, because the nature is the new creation.
I am not anti-Church, but it seems to be unfair to Judge infants…
St. John Chrisostom says little children/infants do have virtues acordind to nature, in Homily 58 on Matthew (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200158.htm):
«”For He called a little child unto Him”, says the Scripture, “and said, Unless you are converted, and become as this little child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:2-3) “Why, you,” He says, “inquire who is greatest, and are contentious for first honors; but I pronounce him, that is not become lowest of all, unworthy so much as to enter in there.”
And full well does He both allege that pattern, and not allege it only, but also set the child in the midst, by the very sight abashing them, and persuading them to be in like manner lowly and artless. Since both from envy the little child is pure, and from vainglory, and from longing for the first place; and he is possessed of the greatest of virtues, simplicity, and whatever is artless and lowly.
Not courage then only is wanted, nor wisdom, but this virtue also, humility I mean, and simplicity. Yea, and the things that belong to our salvation halt even in the chiefest point, if these be not with us.
The little child, whether it be insulted and beaten, or honored and glorified, neither by the one is it moved to impatience or envy, nor by the other lifted up.
Do you see how again He calls us on to all natural excellencies, indicating that of free choice it is possible to attain them, and so silences the wicked frenzy of the Manichæans? For if nature be an evil thing, wherefore does He draw from hence His patterns of severe goodness?
And the child which He set in the midst I suppose to have been a very young child indeed, free from all these passions. For such a little child is free from pride and the mad desire of glory, and envy, and contentiousness, and all such passions, and having many virtues, simplicity, humility, unworldliness, prides itself upon none of them; which is a twofold severity of goodness; to have these things, and not to be puffed up about them. Wherefore He brought it in, and set it in the midst;»
So, to rezumate what st. John says is that “the little child is pure, and from vainglory, and from longing for the first place; and he is possessed of the greatest of virtues, simplicity, and whatever is artless and lowly.”
All these are “natural excellencies”, and this type of “very young child” indeed “have many virtues”.
That was the last one. Hope you enjoy a little my work. 🙂🙏
God bless all of us,
Andrei
Augustine’s position is not quite as harsh as it seems. In Contra Julianum 5.11, he writes, “Who can doubt that non-baptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there” (qtd. in John Randolph Willis, The Teachings of the Church Fathers, 245).
This is where st. Augustine was mistaken, and Catholics follow him and do not understand the true meaning and difference of inherit a weak nature and inherit a sin. I have some quotations about how we do not have sins at birth, but inclination to make sins, like St. Gregory Palama said in the comment of brother Craig above. Inclination means potential, not act!
“Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24, 16)
““What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: “The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel.” (Ezekiel 18, 2-3)
“[…]The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” (Ezekiel 18, 18-23)
“Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.” (Jeremiah 31, 30)
“They(Jews in Egypt) worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters,” (Psalm 105/106, 36-38) (!!!)So their sons were innocent, not guilty of their parents sins!
“[…]but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” (James 1, 14-15)
I’m not sure how your quote supports the view that unbaptised children go to hell – you say that Augustine was wrong to say that unbaptised infants may not suffer after death?
I put those quotes not to deny salvation of infants, but mistake of saying that they inherit sins at birth. Salvation of inafants I was trying to argued above too. 🙂
Original sin is inherited by all men.
Romans 5:18-19 “18 Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”
waterandthespirit,
You misinterpret that quote. Look how St. John Chrisostom translate it https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210210.htm :
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.
What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offense of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word sinners mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death!”
So not a sin, but liable to punishment and death. Same interpretați is given by St. Cyril of Alexandria.
“liable to punishment and death”. Seems like the punishment is the same as for sin.
St. Justin the Martyr in Dyalogue with Trypho, 88 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm :
“[…]even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression.”
We inherit again death, no sin.
You can describe it as you like, but St. John Chrysostom says: “liable to punishment and death.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria commentary on Romans:
“What has Adam’s guilt [πταίσματα] got to do with us? Why are we held responsible for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? Did not God say: The parents will not die for the children, nor the children for the parents, but the soul which has sinned, it shall die. (Ezekiel 18:19-20 LXX) How then shall we defend this doctrine? The soul, I say, which has sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam’s disobedience in the following manner…. After he fell into sin and surrendered to corruption, impure lusts [ἡδονή τε καί ἀκαθαρσίας] invaded the nature of his flesh and at the same time the evil law of our members was born. For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is Adam, and thus many became sinners. This was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin. Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam [ἐν Ἀδὰμ] because of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was later set free by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin.” (Gerald Bray, ed., Romans, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 142-43)
From a Catholic perspective:
By the thirteenth century, the dominant view was that unbaptized infants would suffer only the pain of loss. In 1201 Pope Innocent III expressed this opinion in a letter to the archbishop of Arles. Actual sin, the Holy Father asserted, is punished by the eternal torment of hell; original sin, however, is punished by the loss of the vision of God.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, in the fourth century, called the fate of these (infant) souls “something much greater than the human mind can g.asp” and found solace in the fact that “the One who has done everything well, with wisdom, is able to bring good out of evil” (qtd. in HS 12).
The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. (CCC 1261)
The Ordo Exsequiarum (Order of Christian Funerals) contains a special rite for children who die before baptism, during which the child’s soul is entrusted “to the abundant mercy of God, that our beloved child may find a home in his kingdom.” Option D of the opening prayer begins, “God of all consolation, searcher of mind and heart, the faith of these parents . . . is known to you. Comfort them with the knowledge that the child for whom they grieve is entrusted now to your loving care.” In the Prayer of Commendation B, the priest says, “We pray that you give [the child] happiness for ever.”
1. “Broadly, we may discern in those infants who themselves suffer and die a saving conformity to Christ in his own death and a companionship with him” (HS 85).
2. “Some of the infants who suffer and die do so as victims of violence. In their case we may readily refer to the example of the Holy Innocents and discern an analogy in the case of these infants to the baptism of blood which brings salvation . . . Moreover, they are in solidarity with the Christ, who said: ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me’ (Matt. 25:40)” (HS 86).
3. “It is also possible that God simply acts to give the gift of salvation to unbaptized infants by analogy with the gift of salvation given sacramentally to baptized infants” (HS 87). “God’s power is not restricted to the sacraments” (HS 82).
4. No Certainties
5. But while offering these possibilities to us, the commission is careful not to overstep the bounds of Revelation. “It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptized infants who die . . . [T]he destiny of the generality of infants who die without baptism has not been revealed to us, and the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed” (HS 79).
6. There are some things that have most assuredly been revealed, and these articles of faith must be considered. Original sin is one of them. When contemplating the fate of unbaptized infants who die, one “cannot ignore the tragic consequences of original sin. Original sin implies a state of separation from Christ, and that excludes the possibility of the vision of God for those who die in that state” (HS 3).
7. “Hope of Salvation” in many places affirms the reality of original sin and the necessity of baptism. “Sacramental baptism is necessary because it is the ordinary means through which a person shares the beneficial affects of Jesus’ death and resurrection” (HS 10). The key phrase is “ordinary means.” In cases of urgency or necessity, God often provides extraordinary means to accomplish his will. Though water baptism is the ordinary means by which God transmits sanctifying grace, the Church teaches that there are other ways. The realities of baptism of blood and baptism of desire are affirmed by the Catechism (CCC 1258). Citing Gaudium et Spes, the Catechism also explains that “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved” (CCC 1260). It is in this same context that the Catechism offers us the “hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism” (CCC 1261).
8. None of this, however, can be understood to imply that baptism is not necessary, for the Catechism states, “The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude . . . God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacrament” (CCC 1257).
9. The conclusions of the ITC are nothing new. The Catechism tells us that it is reasonable to hope that God provides a way of salvation for infants who die without being baptized. It is a hope rooted in Christ, who instructed that we must be like children to enter the kingdom of God and said, “Let the children come to me” (Mark 10:14-15). “Hope of Salvation” simply provides possible theological reasons for this hope. The ITC readily admits that “these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge” (HS 102).
10. What we do know for certain is this: God has a plan. God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful. God is love. We can rest assured that whatever plan God has established for infants who die without baptism, it is more just, more merciful, and more loving than whatever we may imagine, not less.
Extracts from Catholic Answers article.
I think, after all arguments, that our fear to say that infants (unborn too) go to heaven is not to fall into pelagianism. But there is other extreme point, manichaeism. My point of view is that infants going to heaven is not pelagianism, because that implies persons, not nature. So yes, if persons who can decide for themselves die without baptism they are sinfull, so they can not go to heaven. But infants are not persons yet, because they act acordind to their nature, (and nature was saved says St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17) not their choices, especially after we saw above that infants inherit actually no sin, so that’s why they attain deification. That’s my view.
St. Cyril of Alexandria says : “For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is Adam, and thus many became sinners” “because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin.”
What he is saying is that because of the fall of Adam our human nature was corrupted and “contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is Adam.”
In other words sin entered our human nature, making all men sinful by nature if not by personal sin.
Sorry, but you did not read it all. At the final statement St. Cyril says “…so the same nature was later set free by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin.”
And ideed He did this says 2 Corinthians 5:17.
It is Christ who “did not commit sin.”
2 Cor 5:17 says: “17 So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!”
The fulfilment of this “new creation” is at the point when the elect enter heaven completely purified of their sins, not on this earth.
Plase, read it carefully.
St. Cyril says:
“… For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man” and he add “the same nature was later set free by Christ”.
So all creation is healed. But only nature, not persons. That’s why we talk about two types of salvation, objective and subjective.
Christ restored our human essence in Himself, by uniting humankind and God in His own person, reopened for us humans the path to union with God. In His Own person Christ showed what the true “likeness to God” is, and through His redeeming and victorious sacrifice He set that likeness once again within our reach.
So we must distinguish between the truth of the salvation of mankind as a whole, which has already been accomplished, and another truth – the necessity for a personal reception and assimilation of the gift of salvation on the part of each of the faithful, and the fact that this latter salvation depends upon each one himself. Ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, writes the Apostle Paul (Eph. 2:8); but he also teaches, Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12).
“Our objective salvation is realized only in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, whereas our personal or subjective salvation, which in the language of the New Testament is called “righteousness”, “holiness”, or “salvation” (in the narrow sense), is realized as a continuance of this objective salvation, with our personal energy or activity acting in co-operation with Divine Energy or Grace.”
Dogmatic book of Pomazansky will help on this way.
You are right when you say: “He set that likeness once again within our reach.”
It is not yet accomplished until we are in heaven.
I dare to say that, after Christ took human nature He sanctifies it, and infants are, by the soul, as Adam was before the fall, in communion with God. What dies is only their body, because even if Christ reopend the communion with heaven, we still remain sons of Adam too, the flesh need to suffer death. But souls of innocent not anymore go in Seol, but in heaven. My opinion. 🙏
Just a note about “my (your) opinion”.
In Catholic terms, “if one dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one’s own position as a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it for the teaching of the magisterium (this is dissent). But this is precisely what has been occurring. Dissent of this kind is not compatible with the obsequium religiosum. In fact, those who dissent in this way really usurp the teaching office of bishops and popes. Theologians, insofar as they are theologians, are not pastors in the Church. When they instruct the faithful that the teachings of those who are pastors in the Church (the pope and bishops) are false and that the faithful can put those teachings aside and put in their place their own theological opinions, they are harming the Church and arrogantly assuming for themselves the pastoral role of pope and bishops.”
“a theologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in conscience be able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of “withholding assent” and raising questions, but this is a far cry from “dissent.”
[http://www.oodegr.com/english/swthria/nipia2.htm]
Here some quotations from the book “Life after death” of Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos interpreting St. Gregory of Nyssa:
“I may be permitted to quote the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa about the purity of the souls of infants: “Whereas the innocent babe has no such plague before its soul’s eyes obscuring its measure of light, it continues to exist in that natural life; it does not need the soundness that comes from purgation, because it never admitted the plague into its soul at all”. The infant’s nous is pure, it has not been ill, it is distinguished by health and the natural state and therefore is not prevented at all from partaking of the divine Light.”
And at the end of this chapter he made it clear:
” The fact is that the infants who depart from life prematurely neither find themselves in a painful state nor become equal to those who have struggled to be purified by every virtue. They are in God’s Providence. Anyway, the journey to God and participation in the uncreated Light is a natural state of the soul, and infants cannot be deprived of this, because by the power of divine grace they can attain deification.”
All metropolitan Hierotheos suggest is nothing more or less than all Holy Fathers quoted by me above understood the problem of purity of unborn/infants.
After all the arguments, we see that infants inherit at birth actually no sin[St. Gennadius of Constantinople; St. Justin the Martyr; St. Cyril of Alexandria; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrisostom and all quotations from OT] but Adam’s fallen
nature, nature that was saved by Christ[2 Corinthians 5:17; St. Cyril of Alexandria] and has many virtues[St. John Chrisostom], because is from God[St. John of Damascus] and
God makes all His works good, and we also can see that sin is a deliberate act, a matter of free-willing and
personal actions[St. Maximus]. All these demonstrates that for infants “the journey to God and participation in the uncreated Light is a natural state of the soul, and they cannot be deprived of this”[St. John Chrisostom in homily 9 and even St. Ephrem the Syrian in Hymn 10:13 or russian icon], as St. Gregory
of Nyssa is correctly interpreted by metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos in his book.
God bless,
Andrei
I would like to comment on this section that you wrote:
“It would seem the only “punishment” for unbaptized infants is not having a relationship and synergy with God. Nevertheless, it appears, they will not be deprived of natural goods. This is akin (though obviously not the same as) the circle of the righteous pagans in Dante’s Inferno. A chill, nice place to hang out. Good company. It’s just not heaven.”
In fact, there is a part of canon 121 (canon 110 in Latin texts) of the synod in Carthage which states: [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: “Except 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.]
– Latin Text
This is copied from an article “Original Sin and Orthodoxy: Reflections on Carthage”, but it seems to have been deleted in the meantime. There was some debate online about this part of the canon, as it is not found in the Greek text. However, while investigating this issue a few years ago, I found that Saint Photios the Great in his Bibliotheca refers to this part of the canon and he didn’t have any doubt about the authenticity of this part of the canon. Therefore, stating that unbaptized infants are not deprived of natural goods is a position under anathema.
Yes, but being that this canon’s addition is neither in the greek nor most reliable latin authorities, we msut admit its an addition.
Can you elaborate more, why do you think it is not in most reliable latin sources? Why would Saint Photios refer to it if it was unreliable?
I apologize for being so late in my replies, I am not getting notifications (probably because I am logging in with FB which uses my old email)
Saint Photios’ refers to the Latin extended canon? My mind must have not realized the earlier part of your reply. If you can cite that part Bibliotecha smehow that’d be great.
My comments were from even Latin authorities, which did not include the addition. It is possible that the addition was made in Greek and introduced to the Latin West, but it was a variant that was lost and not assumed by later canonists (or put in Photius’ own nomocanon, which is the basis of Orthodox canon law).
I suppose I have not seen enough on it to see it as anything other than an addition, even if the addition is *consistent* with what others have said on the matter, as quoted in the article. But, I am open to learning!
Here, it was an easy find: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm
53. [Acts of the synod of Carthage, 412 or 411, against the Pelagians]
Read an account of the proceedings of the synod held at Carthage 1 in the great church, while Faustus 2 Honorius was emperor of the West, against Pelagius3 and Coelestius.4 The president was Aurelius, bishop of Carthage and Dotianus of Telepte, chief prelate of the province of Byzacena, supported by distinguished Church dignitaries from different provinces, to the number of 224. This synod excommunicated those who asserted that Adam was created mortal, and that he did not suffer death as a punishment for his sin; also those who declared that infants newly born had no need of baptism, because they were not liable to original sin from Adam; also those who affirmed that there was a place midway between hell and paradise, to which infants dying unbaptized were removed, there to live in a state of blessedness. Six other similar articles, which hold the first place in the heresies of Pelagius and Coelestius, were also anathematized.
Apparently the synod of diopolis (an eastern synod) in 415 explicitly condemned, “That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life.” (Augustine, On the Proceedings of Pelagius, Chap 23) Pelagius rejected he said such a thing and stated “I anathematize those who either now hold or have ever held these opinions.” (Ibid. Chap 24) The council accepted Pelagius on these terms.
I record this as those who argue in favor of the salvation of the unbaptized take a position that is hyper pelagian as even pelagian condemned it when brought to task.
“Such was Job when he said, Job 1:21 The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away. For we have all things from Christ. Both existence itself we have through Him, and life, and breath, and light, and air, and earth.
[…]For whether it be wealth that He takes, He has taken but His own; or honor, or glory, or the body, or the life itself: be it that He takes away your son, it is not your son that He has taken, but His own servant. For you formed him not, but He made him. Thou but ministered to his appearing; the whole was God’s own work.” (St. John Chrisostom, Homily X:5, 6 on First Corinthians)
Beautiful words of St. John Chrisostom, “Both existence itself we have through Him, and life” as St. John of Damascus says above “For simple being comes first and then good or evil being.” St. John Chrisostom again added the children took by Him are not damned, but “His own servant(s)”.
And there are some took by Him like 2 Samuel 12:14:
“But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die”,
or Exodus 11:4-5:
“So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill.”
To say that these children are damned or deprived of Heaven means that God want those children go elsewhere, but sure not with Him, and it is not true. And to say that there is a difference between those took by God and those took by us prematurely it means that there is a problem with us, not with Him. Because they are His work, not subject of our bad intentions.
Saint Photios comments on the council of carthage, including an inference of how he interprets the council which is interesting:
This Council anathematized those who claimed that Adam was created mortal and not condemned to death.for your sin; also anathematized those who argued that newborn babies do not need baptism, because they do not drag on themselves the forefather (προγονικήν) sin, which is from Adam; also – *those who claimed that there is a place between hell and heaven where babies who die without baptism live in bliss*.
It should be noted Photios agrees with everything of the councils and saints on the issue out of presumption and contrasts the opposite with Pelagianism and Nestorianism, accusing those who had charges against Augustine of being “impious.”
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Fotij_Konstantinopolskij/o-svt-avgustine-pelagianstve-i-nestorianskoj-eresi/
Craig, so have you changed your position that you exposed in the article, because these last few comments imply to me that you have?
I’m not aware of any change, do you mind explaining?
I often write notes to myself in the comments section of this blog, so this is an incomplete thought, take it for what you will:
In Homily 31 on Matthew by St John Chrysostom, it appears that St John in chapter 4 is saying the “heathen’s” children will be resurrected. However, if one begins reading the conversation in chapter 3, he is contrasting the unbelieving Jews (who mourn for the dead synagogue ruler’s daughter) as being unworthy to see the miracle of her resurrection due to their unbelief, while the Greeks (i.e. “gentiles/heathen”) I presume due to their faith are made worthy to have their children resurrected. Chrysostom then chides the “faithful” for lamenting the death of their children like unbelievers (chaps 4-5), saying that “the children of the heathen” (i.e. Gentile Christians?) will be resurrected. Chap 5 seems to impute to these alleged “heathen” faith (“Many, for instance, among the [faithful?] Greeks although they *knew* nothing of course about immortality, have crowned themselves at the decrease of their children, and appeared in white garments, that they might reap the present glory; but thou [the Jews? local Christians being compared to the Jews?] not even for the future glory’s sake ceasest your woman’s behavior and wailing.”). Albeit, it is a difficult passage but I am struggling to contextualize the statements made and their meaning and this is where I am so far. I know people will read this and just read chap 4 in isolation and say this would not be appropriate. This is perhaps correct, I am not totally convinced myself of the interpretation about. Maybe 60-40, 70-30, something like that. I have praying to understand this better.
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110/npnf110/Page_209.html
Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage says this:
“[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.]”
This seems to completely preclude any interpretation that infants do not go to Gehenna and do not suffer eternally. Craig how do you respond to this?
As we discussed, baptism is the nromative means to salvation and no baptism the opposite.
What do the church fathers say about those who die before they are born, sometimes full term or nearly so? I am speaking primarily of the stillborn, though miscarried children also fit this category.
The icon often shared near sanctity of life Sunday would seem to indicate they are welcomed into heaven, but I do not know if this is the stance of the church or just a feel-good sentiment.
I’m only of st Ephraim directly commenting on it and he places them in heaven, but this would be an outlier among the fathers on treating the topic of the unbaptized, but I can simply report what has been said.
It should be remembered that there is no evidence that the good thief on the cross was baptised. Also, there is a baptism of fire for those, unbaptised, who die for the faith.
Baptism of fire means hell…
???
Baptism of fire usually means baptism by martyrdom.
There is also a direct reference to it in Matthew 3:11 ” He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
“Additionally, they seem to think God can arbitrarily flip a salvation switch, thereby rejecting the Orthodox doctrine of the atonement.”
Craig, this isn’t Orthodox. The formulation of this thought is not consonant with the received theologizing of the Church. Speculative theology on this topic profits very little and harms many. This is not the way, my brother.
It seems to me the only speculative part of the article is when I try to delineate exceptions to the teachings of the saints on this matter. I suggest you read the saints.
At 6:20, a disciple of St paisios states that the aborted neither go to heaven or hell. https://youtu.be/isDV82LVORU