The key to understanding Augustine’s theory of Redemption (and its untenability) is that it works in tandem with his version of the doctrine of Original Sin. Divine intervention — grace — is absolutely necessary because, according to Augustine, Original Sin has rendered human nature so thoroughly corrupt that no merely human effort, no matter how heroic and sustained, could ever avoid much less reverse human moral degeneration. “Sin,” in this sense, affected the whole human race … no one was excepted:
… [Adam] through his sin subjected his descendents to the punishment of sin and damnation, for he had radically corrupted them in himself by his sinning. As a consequence of this all those descended from him and his wife … — all those born through carnal lust on whom the same penalty is visited as for disobedience — all these entered into the inheritance of original sin. … ‘Thus by one man sin entereed the world and death through sin and thus death came upon all men …’ By “the world” in this passage, of course, the apostle is referring to the whole human race. (Augustine, Enchiridion, VIII,26)
Augustine’s innovation imputing guilt and moral impotence to absolutely everyone, clearly, was crucial if he was going to provide a rational ground for the universal necessity of the Church and its ritual ministrations. His predecessor, Cyprian of Carthage, had ennunciated the principle 150 years earlier during the Decian persecution: extra ecclesiam nulla salus, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But think of what it meant that every human being who died without baptism went to eternal torment. As we saw, Augustine’s consistency required he apply it rigorously, even in the case of unbaptized newborn infants. He had to insist that “God’s” justice completely trumped his mercy.
Besides its utter absurdity, Augustine’s theory of Original Sin falls on a number of factual counts. First, it contradicts what anyone could see even without the advantages of modern science, namely, that death is natural. All organisms die. The claim that we were created naturally immortal because of our “spiritual” soul, was a Platonic theory that was philosophically contested even in ancient times and became a generally accepted “fact” only with the ascendancy of Christianity and the outlawing of other religions and philosophies by Rome. This was not limited to the West. The eastern Orthodox to this day continue to insist that death is not natural.
Second, from the clear evidence of an abundance of good, just and loving people, who in those days were all pagans, it is patently clear that human nature is absolutely not corrupt, and quite capable of living morally on the resources provided by nature. Claims of universal depravity in Roman times was a “spin” created by Christians to justify their call to abandon ancestral religions and “convert.” The inability to acknowledge even the innocence of newborn infants was the most egregious example of this myopia. It was an extrapolation. Augustine’s primary evidence for the corruption of human nature was, in fact, his own sexual addiction — actually, what he himself admits was a deep attachment to his common-law wife interpreted as a moral trap by his own vaulting ambition and delusional belief in the superiority of celibacy. All he had to do was to fully embrace his marriage and his “sense of corruption” would have ended then and there. He couldn’t do that because it would have meant career suicide: he was upper class, she was lower class.
Besides, Augustine’s obsessive pursuit of celibacy was, in my opinion, an attempt at self-aggrandizement propelled by 9 years as a “second-class” (non-celibate) Manichee. Moreover, the denigration of all forms of sexuality as “carnal” and “imperfect” was a pervasive attitude in the mediterranean world which included the Christian Church of his time; and it was a cherished conviction of Ambrose of Milan, his mentor at the time of his conversion.
Third, Augustine’s metaphysical interpretation of what happened in the Garden of Eden (i.e., that nature was metaphysically changed) is entirely gratuitous. It is contrary to the obvious intentions of the Jewish biblical authors and the current Jewish scholarly understanding of the story as a parable encouraging obedience to the moral counsels of Israel. Yahweh’s rejection of inherited guilt, explicit in both Exodus and the prophets, is quite unambiguous and totally belies the fundamental premises of Augustine’s treatment. The Eastern Orthodox have always rejected Augustine’s interpretation as non-apostolic.
Fourth, according to Augustine, and his 16th century Western defenders in the reformed tradition, “God” predestines every human being to heaven or hell by choosing to save the (undeserving) elect while he knows but does not choose to save the (equally undeserving) reprobate. Such convoluted contortions presuppose a real distinction between “knowing” and “willing” in “God,” which, even in the case of human beings is a contrived conceptual fiction, and for “God” whose every act and thought are acknowledged by classical theology to be identical with “his” essence, there is no distinction between knowing and willing. The entire effort is revealed for the circularity that it really is: the attempt to justify a theory of “redemption” that was concocted out of thin air, and hang it on a “sky hook” suspended from non-existent premises.
Besides, why does “God” choose to save some and not others? No one knows, and we are advised not to inquire.
… [God] simply does not bestow his justifying mercy on some sinners. … God decides whom to withold mercy from according to a standard of fairness which is most hidden and far removed from the power of human understanding.
Predestination is presented as a matter of pure whim, without rhyme or reason. This gives rise to the Christian’s complaint: when it comes to punishment, reasons abound … and “God” himself is bound by them — he must punish the guilty, even newborn infants. When it comes to mercy, however, there is no such obligation; all we are told is that he saves some and abandons others to their fate “for the sake of his glory.” Augustine’s “God” was definitely not a liberal.
* * *
Here is where I stand: There was no “Original Sin” as Augustine claimed, and there is no such “God.” Therefore the perennial Christian belief that we are “saved by Jesus’ death” from selfishness and isolation may very well be true in some other sense entirely, but in the traditional sense that they have been given in Western Christian history — as atonement to an insulted “God” for the sin of Adam and the recuperation of a lost immortality — they are unjustifiable nonsense, rationally and scripturally. Augustine’s attempt to “explain” redemption in those terms is pure fiction, a tale of zombies, resident evil and “fate” — a paranormal nightmare, the horror movie of the Western World. That Hollywood and Burbank continue to pour out great quantities of films and TV series based on these themes speaks to the depth of the imagery in the popular mind inculcated by 1500 years of Augustinian Roman Catholicism.
Luther and Calvin did not have an option. They awoke at the end of the middle ages lost in the maze created by Augustine’s tormented Roman mind: a humanity thoroughly corrupted by “Original Sin” and an an emperor “God” whose commitment to the rights of authority was more fundamental than his compassion for the human condition. The “reformation” was their attempt to find a way out of the labyrinth.
They never did find their way out, because given the premises there is no way out. They did the only thing you could do: trust “God” and ignore it all. It’s an historical lesson that we cannot afford to forget. For look what it did: it left everything in place, by which I mean Augustine’s dysfunctional “concept of ‘God.’” That “God,” dreaded by his worshippers and ridiculed by his skeptics, is the very same “God” that mainstream religion imagines today. From my point of view, the “reformation” reformed nothing.
Christians in the West have so internalized this scenario that they think there can be no other story; but it is only one explanation among many. A different one is told by the Eastern Orthodox and it’s a story they claim the Church Fathers have been telling since Apostolic times. I present it here not because I espouse it or because it is any less incompatible with the world as science understands it, but simply to show that the same events seen through the eyes of the same ancient pre-scientific worldview can be given a very different interpretation from Augustine’s. It is an interpretation that has as much ancient tradition behind it as our own, it does not assassinate the character of “God,” and does not require the personal dehumanization and political emasculation of its adherents.
The following is a précis of that narrative taken from the book, The Ancestral Sin, by John S. Romanides. He begins with an “Original Sin” that did not pass the guilt on to the entire human race. Adam and Eve were the only ones guilty of that sin of disobedience, no one else. Human individuals were not born guilty and infants did not merit eternal damnation. What got passed on were the bodily effects: death, hardship, toil, and a humanity less disposed to strive for theosis, “perfection,” because of death. The fear of death had predisposed us to selfishness and made forgiveness, mildness and generosity the object of derision.
The great enemy is the fear of death … and it was introduced in the garden by Satan, they insist, not God. It is the fear of death that makes us grasping and ungenerous. Jesus died and rose, not to atone for sin or placate the Father, but in order to conquer the fear of death for us. Jesus’ resurrection and our incorporation into it overcomes the sting of death and with it the selfishness that death inspires. He thus leads his brothers and sisters to a life of compassion and unstinting generosity in imitation of the boundless generosity of “God.” We become like God — divinized — by being immersed through baptism in Jesus’ divine humanity and learning how to love one another without measure as “God” loves us; the human family is transformed and the earth along with it. This is theosis, human perfection; it is immediately, intrinsically social. We become fearless; we can afford to fight for justice and live with joyous abandon. We learn to love one another the way “God” loves us.
Notice: there is no insulted “God,” no infinite offense, no atonement, no compensating for the disrespect to “God’s” authority, no universal guilt, no “double predestination,” no moral impotence, no infants condemned to eternal torment. The “God” imagined by the Greek Orthodox narrative “seeks not his own” and wants nothing except to have us understand him and share his joyous life of boundless love. There is also little talk of “heaven,” it being understood that to love one another as God loves is itself paradise, and if indeed there is such a place, what makes it “heavenly” is the love that will bind us all together there even as it does here.
 Ex 20:5; Ez 18:20
 To Simplicianus, I. 2,16 quoted in Fredricksen, op.cit. p.182
 John S. Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, tr. George Gabriel, Zephyr Press, Ridgwood NJ, 2008 (1957). Fr. Romanides was a theologian and Patristic scholar who taught theology at Universities in Thessalonica, Greece and Balamand, Lebanon. He died in 2001.