Book XIV- The Two Cities & the Two Loves

[John]

Book XIV “The two cities & the two loves”

Hello “City of God” readers, I signed up to moderate book XIV, so I wrote an initial post to get the ball rolling.

Book XIII was Augustine’s well-known writing on Original Sin, in book XIV he moves into what some have said is the most widely encompassing book of Augustine’s tome, in which Augustine applies personality and behavior, basically what one would call a mode of inhabitation, to both cities: heaven and earth. In Book XIV, we will run into the Donatist controversy and their belief’s (and Augustine’s objections to them), as we will also Paul’s use of flesh in 1 Corinthians 2&3.

We will discovery quickly in Book XIV that the concept of sin is addressed repeatedly by Augustine. A Good starting place for us, then, will be to ask: how do you define “sin” and how do you think Augustine defines “sin” and how do the definitions differ?

[Nemo]

John Angerer wrote: "...the most widely encompassing book of Augustine’s tomb..."

Is that what is called a Freudian slip? :) Does reading a tome feels like being buried in a tomb?

[Ruth]

Interesting questions you asked about sin.

I once read the book by Josef Pieper, the concept of sin, which was quite an eye opener to me. He defined sin as missing the mark, which just seemed so lighthearted to me. I always used to think that sin was intentionally doing something malicious, and then it is a bit confusing to hear everywhere that we are all sinners.

[John]

Nemo wrote: "John Angerer wrote: "...the most widely encompassing book of Augustine’s tomb..."

Is that what is called a Freudian slip? :) Does reading a tome feels like being buried in a tomb?"

Well, Nemo, since I'm reading a paperback version of City, the weight of it sometimes feels like I'm getting buried! LOL...so yes I guess it's a Freudian slip.

[John]

Ruth wrote: "Interesting questions you asked about sin.

I once read the book by Josef Pieper, the concept of sin, which was quite an eye opener to me. He defined sin as missing the mark, which just seemed so ..."

Ruth, I have not read Pieper, but it seems like sin is a little more then "missing the mark," However, the one version of the Book of Common Prayer confessions' of sin state that we repent the "things done and left undone" which, the "left undone" aspect seems to address the "missing the mark" Pieper supposes. I will think about the question, "does sin require intention?"

[Ruth]

Yes, intention, what has that to do with sin. It's a question that has been lingering in the back of my mind for a long time.

In my observation, lots of trouble comes from the best intentions.

So what is sin, in my opinion? Nemo mentioned that Chesterton said that original sin was the only Christian dogma that could be proven. However, I think he was then talking about the fact that evil exists, and that we can all observe even within ourselves that often we do things wrong, either on purpose or because we are too attached to something that's right, but not now.

But, but.. for me the essence of the concept of sin, is that it could have been different, if only... (Eve didn't eat that apple... We were more obedient, we were more open to grace)

I tend to protest inwardly against that "if only", because I feel we are then blaming ourselves for something that was inevitable.

Perhaps that's another issue, where does blame get into the story.

[Ruth]

Perhaps I've missed something, since I skipped large parts, but this is the first time I read the definition of Augustine of the "city of God", in the end of chapter 1 of book 14.

[Ruth]

I'm now reading through book 14 with those initial questions in the back of my mind, and I think I just came across one definition of sin by Augustine, in the end of chapter 3, and the beginning of chapter 4

To paraphrase, I think he says that sin is living according to self, as opposed to living according to God.
And in other words, he says sin is living a lie, as opposed to living according to the truth.

[Ruth]

An interesting sentence in chapter 5: "For anyone who praises the nature of the soul as the highest good and blames the nature of the flesh as something evil is undoubtedly fleshly in both his attraction to the soul and his flight from the flesh, since his view is based on human folly rather than divine truth."

So, being overly ascetic is actually 'fleshly'. And: one can be too attracted to the soul?

[Ruth]

I hope I'm not spamming too much now... with all my comments in a row. (perhaps it also has to do with living in a different timezone, I think I am some 7 hours before most of you)

Anyway.

He now touches on a deep question of mine, which is in how far can we be blamed for being a sinner. I'll explain my question more below, but first the quote:

And, since no one is evil by nature, but whoever is evil is evil due to some fault, the person who lives according to God owes a perfect hatred to those who are evil—that is, he will neither hate the person because of the fault nor love the fault because of the person but will rather hate the fault and love the person. For, once the fault is cured, all that he should love will remain, and nothing will remain that he should hate.

So ... the person is not to blame, apparently. But this paragraph comes right after a paragraph where he explains that the important factor is the person's will.

Now, is our will different from our being a person? If so, what makes up the difference? If my will is weak or wrong, is that then me who is wrong or weak?

[Nemo]

Ruth wrote: "Now, is our will different from our being a person? If so, what makes up the difference? If my will is weak or wrong, is that then me who is wrong or weak?..."

There is an in-depth discussion of the will in Book XII, which I think is foundational to Augustine's conception of evil and sin.

Simply put, our free choice of will is part of what we are as human beings. It is good by nature, as God's creation. The ability to will and to choose is not evil, but to choose against the good is evil. If we abuse what is good by nature, we commit evil, as we fall short of and depart from the good.

[Ruth]

Aha, I'll shortly jump back to book 12 then.

[Ruth]

John wrote: "A Good starting place for us, then, will be to ask: how do you define “sin” and how do you think Augustine defines “sin” and how do the definitions differ?"

I have tried to answer the first two questions in my comments above. I'd be interested in how others answer them!

As for my answer to the third question (how does my definition differ from Augustine's) it seems that my preliminary idea sees more malicious intent in sin. Augustin seems to view it more as being mistaken about what is truly good.

[Ruth]

What is more, evil is eliminated not by removing the nature which it had entered or by removing any part of that nature but rather by healing and rectifying the nature that had become vitiated and depraved

Wow! I have been searching for an argument like this. I used to think that we are inherently bad and need somehow to change into something totally different. I think I misunderstood what is said about old life and new life in scripture. Difficult to get rid of such deeply rooted convictions, grown since childhood, but this argumentation by Augustine seems most plausible.

[Ruth]

"Thus, to abandon God and to exist in oneself—that is, to be pleased with oneself—does not mean that one immediately loses all being but rather that one veers toward nothingness"

This reminds me of what Rod Dreher said ( in: how Dante can save your life) namely that sin is like being attracted by a black hole instead of the sun. At the time it helped me see that "living a new life" meant a life in the other direction, not a totally replaced life.

[John]

Ruth wrote: "I'm now reading through book 14 with those initial questions in the back of my mind, and I think I just came across one definition of sin by Augustine, in the end of chapter 3, and the beginning of..."

Ruth, I agree, that Augustine defines Sin as living according to the "self." that's why Jesus' teaching to love your neighbor as yourself seems so simple but truly is so difficult.

[John]

Ruth wrote: "I hope I'm not spamming too much now... with all my comments in a row. (perhaps it also has to do with living in a different timezone, I think I am some 7 hours before most of you)


Ruth, you are not spamming, I should have posted when I started as moderator for this book that weekends are difficult for me to get online, but know that I'm reading your posts!

[John]

Ruth wrote: As for my answer to the third question (how does my definition differ from Augustine's) it seems that my preliminary idea sees more malicious intent in sin. Augustin seems to view it more as being mistaken about what is truly good.


I think Augustine took this avenue in this place in the book because he is still dealing with the Stoic argument held over from the last 2 books, maybe all the way back to book X. That, mixed with his explaining the psychology of fellow humanity (his language about our being "adoring beings" and his replacing Stoic concepts with Christian concepts ("Joy" replaces "gladness", as in Galatians 5:29). I may be wrong, so, please if anyone has comments, bring them out for a spin!