|
|
Post by civic on Aug 19, 2022 5:46:06 GMT -8
This is from our beloved brother in Christ John Wesley  Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitternesscensoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him… When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.” ‘ – John Wesley, The Works of the Late Reverend John Wesley (1835 Edition), volume 2, p. 110 This man was Calvin’s mentor whom he quoted 100’s of times in his works and where most of his doctrines originated from . throw Sola Scriptura out the window from augustine below . “ And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces [here Augustine seems to refer to hermits like St Antony of Egypt] . So that in their case, I think, the saying is already fulfilled: “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.” 1 Corinthians 13:8 Yet by means of these instruments (as they may be called), so great an edifice of faith and love has been built up in them, that, holding to what is perfect, they do not seek for what is only in part perfect— of course, I mean, so far as is possible in this life; for, in comparison with the future life, the life of no just and holy man is perfect here. Therefore the apostle says: “Now abides faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity:” 1 Corinthians 13:13 because, when a man shall have reached the eternal world, while the other two graces will fail, love will remain greater and more assured.” Saint Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana : Chapter 39.— He Who is Mature in Faith, Hope and Love, Needs Scripture No Longer. On women below : Except for the purpose of procreation, another man would have been a more suitable companion/or Adam or if it was not for help in producing children that a wife was made for the man, then what other help was she made for? If it was to till the earth together with him there was as yet no hard toil to need such assistance; and if there had been the need, a male would have made a better help. The same can be said about companionship, should he grow tired of solitude. How much more agreeably, after all, for conviviality and conversation would two male friends live together on equal terms than man and wife? While if it was expedient that one should be in charge and the other should comply to avoid a clash of wills disturbing the peace of the household, such an arrangement would have been ensured by one being made first, the other later, especially if the later were created from the former, as the female was in fact created. Or would anyone say that God was only able to make a female from the man’s rib, and not also a male if he so wished? For these reasons I cannot work out what help a wife could have been made to provide the man with, if you take away the purpose of childbearing.” — Augustine, On Genesis, Book IX, 5.9, p. 380. I will share more teaching that augustine brought into the church that did not exist prior to him such as divine determism, calvinistic/augustinian view of sovereignty and predestination, double predestination, original sin and some of the other teachings in tulip. augustine was heavily influenced by Manicheanism. Gnosticism, paganism and Platonism that he mixed together with christian teachings. hope this helps !!! |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Aug 19, 2022 5:50:12 GMT -8
The consensus view asserts Augustine developed his later doctrines ca. 396 CE while writing Ad Simplicianum as a result of studying scripture. His early De libero arbitrio argued for traditional free choice refuting Manichaean determinism, but his anti-Pelagian writings rejected any human ability to believe without God giving faith. Kenneth M. Wilson's study is the first work applying the comprehensive methodology of reading systematically and chronologically through Augustine's entire extant corpus (works, sermons, and letters 386-430 CE), and examining his doctrinal development. The author explores Augustine's later theology within the prior philosophical-religious context of free choice versus deterministic arguments. This analysis demonstrates Augustine persisted in traditional views until 412 CE and his theological transition was primarily due to his prior Stoic, Neoplatonic, and Manichaean influences.
Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'non-Free Free Will': A Comprehensive Methodology
(Augustine) Augustine's Letters #185 Ch.6: "It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word."
(Augustine) Augustine's Letters #185 Ch.6: "Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction? Although even men who have not been compelled, but only led astray, are received by their loving mother with more affection if they are recalled to her bosom through the enforcement of terrible but salutary laws, and are the objects of far more deep congratulation than those whom she had never lost. Is it not a part of the care of the shepherd, when any sheep have left the flock, even though not violently forced away, but led astray by tender words and coaxing blandishments, to bring them back to the fold of his master when he has found them, by the fear or even the pain of the whip, if they show symptoms of resistance; especially since, if they multiply with growing abundance among the fugitive slaves and robbers, he has the more right in that the mark of the master is recognized on them,"
Calvinism inherited from Augustine the iconoclasm against the physical world that Platonism is anchored on.
Some of his teachings that crept into the church :
1. Absolute predestination (God decides who will be saved/doomed)
2. Impossibility of falling away or apostasy (Eternal Security)
3. Man has no free will (monergism)
4. One cannot know if he/she is saved (since also those who are carnal minded might be saved)
5. God commands impossibilities (God requesting man to stop sinning which he cannot do)
6. The supreme authority of the Roman church
7. Purgatory
8. Prayers for the dead
9. The damnation of unbaptized infants and adults
10. Sex is sinful also within a marriage because depravity is inherited (hence the rise of monasteries)
11. Mary never committed sin, and we do well to worship her/pray to/through her
12. The gifts of healing, prophecy and tongues have ceased
13. Apocrypha is included in the Scriptures
14. Eucharist is necessary for salvation
15. Giving people the official “saint” title (catholic saints )
hope this helps !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Aug 19, 2022 5:55:29 GMT -8
Augustine tried Manicheanism, a persecuted faith in the Roman Empire, but one peculiarly appealing to a man of passion who felt two tendencies at war within him.
Manicheanism, like Gnosticism, taught that the true spiritual Jesus had no material body and did not actually die. His purpose was to teach men the way out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. Like the Gnostics, the Manicheans held that much of the New Testament is true, but they rejected everything in it that seemed to suggest Christ’s real sufferings, and they discarded the Old Testament altogether.
Augustine remained an eager Manichean for nine years, from 374 to 383, before dissatisfaction with its teachings arose in his mind. During these years he taught grammar in his native Tagaste, and rhetoric in Carthage, and though inwardly doubting the truth of the Manichean philosophy, it was at the suggestion of Manichean friends in 383 that he moved to Rome.
From
ebooks.faithlife.com
Church History in Plain Language
It's about time that someone wrote church history that tells about people, not just about "eras" and "ages." Church History in Plain Language taps the roots of our Christian family tree. It combines authoritative research with a captivating style to bring our heritage home to us.
ebooks.faithlife.com ebooks.faithlife.com
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Aug 19, 2022 6:20:20 GMT -8
Augustinian theology was a modified Manichaeism or a semi-Gnosticism. Consider the following facts: 1-All of the Early Christians, before Augustine, believed in man’s free will and denied man’s natural inability. 2-The Gnostics in the days of the Early Church believed in man’s natural inability and denied man’s free will. 3-Augustine was a Gnostic for many years, in the Manichaeism sect, and converted to the Church out of Gnosticism. 4-After joining the Church and being appointed a Bishop, Augustine began to deny the free will of man and to affirm the natural inability of man 5-The Church, under Augustine’s influence, began to believe in the natural inability of man, which it never before held to, but which it formerly would refute. What can we conclude by these facts except that when Augustine converted to Christianity out of Gnosticism, he brought with him some Gnostic doctrine? His views on human nature and free will were never held by the Early Church, but were held by the Gnostics. How can we possibly account for the fact that all of Christianity held to the freedom of the human will while only the Gnostic’s taught a corrupted and sinful nature, until Augustine joined the Christian Church out of Gnosticism? It seems abundantly clear that Augustine departed from the theology of the Early Church and remained in agreement with the Gnostics on the issue of human nature and free will. Church doctrine and theology has been infiltrated and polluted with Gnostic heresies. The Church went wrong at the time of Augustine. Christian theology violently crashed like a train, falling off the tracks, and has continued to charge and move forward on the wrong path and in the wrong direction ever since. The greatest contributors to modern Christian theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Augustine was influenced by Manichaean thought and Luther and Calvin were influenced by Augustinian thought. Therefore, it is no surprise that Augustine denied free will as the Manichaeans did, and Luther and Calvin denied free will as Augustine did. The Manichaeans influenced Augustine and Augustine in turn influenced Luther and Calvin. Luther defended his position against free will by saying, “Augustine… is wholly on my side…”[74] Calvin, like Luther, appealed to Augustine to support and defend his position. Calvin said, “Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest” Calvin be charged with “being opposed to all antiquity…”[75] Calvin tried to dismiss the charge of being opposed to the Early Church by saying, “Augustine hesitated not to call the will a slave…”[76] Charles Partee said “In his teaching on total depravity and bondage of the will Calvin is essentially following Augustine and Luther and not creating a so-called Calvinistic doctrine.”[77] Gnosticism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism have much in common. Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism teach Gnostic views of human nature and free will but under a different name. It’s the same old Gnosticism in a new wrapper. Other doctrines also seem to have originated in Gnosticism, from Basilianism, Valentianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism, such as the doctrines of easy believism, individual predestination, constitutional regeneration, a sinful nature or a sinful flesh, eternal security or once saved always saved, and others. But no Gnostic doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church, with such great acceptance as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God. This view has been held in both Catholic and Protestant Churches, taught by both Arminian and Calvinist theologians. Augustine taught many false doctrines such as the sinless life of Mary, praying to the dead, persecuting heretics, infant damnation, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Yet it is his false teaching in regards to human nature and free will that has spread beyond the Catholic Church into the Protestant realm. Consider these facts that have been shown: Augustine’s mind was highly influenced by the teachings of Manichaeism on the topic of human nature and free will; and in his views on the subject, he clearly departed from the views of the Early Church. The minds of Martin Luther and John Calvin were highly influenced by the teachings of Augustine on the topic of human nature and free will and admitted to departing from the views of the Early Church. The greatest contributors to modern theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Isn’t it abundantly clear that Gnostic doctrine has infected the Church? The Gnostic doctrine of the bondage of the will, or the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God, has crept into the Church through a “Trojan horse” and has been masquerading as Christianity ever since. It has survived the centuries through Augustinian, Lutheran, and Calvinistic theology. These groups have preserved and promoted the doctrine of natural inability. This belief has spread like a dangerous plague, finding acceptance in many denominations and churches, but what it is not what orthodox Christianity believed.’ crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/hope this helps !!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2022 10:52:46 GMT -8
You writing a book? There are two very important conditions to understand when reading Augustine, or reading quote mines, or second-hand or third-hand reports about Augustine - especially if motivated by someone holding a different position. The first is Augustine changed. A lot. One of the benefits of reading Aug is the example he sets as someone who's views grew, evolved, changed, and/or matured as he aged, and studied and developed his positions building upon his experience and the times in which he lived. He was imperfect at any and every point in his life. That imperfection does not change his God-given brilliance or God's using him for our benefit. The second matter is the understanding very little had been formally decided upon by Augustine's time. The cannon of scripture wasn't decided. Most of what we now consider (commonly accepted) core doctrine was still often and hotly debated in the first four centuries following the NT era. For example, I'd be very curious to know what evidence Wesley had to say Augustine hated Pelagius. I'm not sure Aug ever met Pel and, if memory serves me right, their personal correspondence (as opposed to their doctrinal debate) was well-mannered and respectful of one another. Augustine was asked to debate Pelagius. He didn't start that debate. The early church was significantly divided in many ways over the matters of inherent human faculties and their abilities as it pertained to the conditions of sin, grace, and salvation. For us in modernity Augustine is a sort of "fulcrum" upon which modern understanding "seesaws," but in his day he was simply one of many competing voices in a world in which little formal doctrine existed. The doctrines hadn't yet been formalized, so there wasn't any externally-existing standard by which all thoughts could be measured. Augustine was influential and critically so, but everything he asserted was vigorously and prayerfully debated. He was not the Pope  . He wasn't the despot over the body of Christ. He did not rule the show. Furthermore, the Church's position wasn't formalized until after Augustine had died! The views we now associate with Pelagius were denounced at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and re-examined and re-denounced a century later at the Council of Orange. Augustine was dead on both occasions. This is important because the institutional Church changed a lot following Augustine but those changes were not necessarily changes Augustine would have supported. For example, it was common practice for priests of his era to have concubines (even if they were married!). Augustine kept a mistress who he purported loved genuinely (and I believe may have sired a child with her). Despite that relationship, it was recommended he marry a woman of stature to improve his own standing and he became betrothed to such a woman. However, He had personal difficulties with both relationships, the politics that drove those practices, and his devotion to God. He ended up breaking off the betrothal, ending the relationship with the mistress, and asserting singlehood and celibacy for himself. He did not require that as a standard for all clergy. The RCC's standard of clerical celibacy was influenced by Augustine despite Augustine, not because of his whole example. And it was another three or four centuries before that practice became formalized and standard doctrine. That's not on Augustine. Then there is the matter of Wesley as a source for measuring anything, especially Augustine, because Wesley was a mess. Yep. I said it. There's a certain paradox using Wesley because Wesley is another good example of someone who changed immensely over the course of his lifetime and died with somethings unresolved or undecided. Chief among these is Wesley's wrestling match with piety. Wesley is also important in the historical move away from creedalism to experientialism and the resulting lack of doctrinal and practical uniformity so prevalent today in modernity. The irony is that those who complain most about the lack of uniformity tend to be those asserting a position that did not exist even remotely to the same degree prior to Wesley's methodism. In comparison to Augustine, Wesley would easily be the greater heretic from the historical Protestant perspective. The larger truths of the matter are that it took four hundred years for sound core doctrine, including the canon of scripture to be established and since then there have been various periods within Church history when the doctrines and the practices they beget have been examined, debated, tested, and reformed. Sometime for better, sometimes for worse. Luther, Calvin, and Arminius were all Augustinian. Arminians and Arminian-influenced Wesleyans have no business complaining about Augustine and cannot justly doing so without also indicting themselves and looking foolish for the inconsistency. The only reason that ever happens is because a person doesn't know enough Church history and the flow of thought, doctrine, and practice from the NT era to modernity. All the Protestant Reformers vigorously debated doctrine and practice, sometimes well and sometimes poorly. They did so in a day when to be outside a given norm could prove lethal. No one is going to hunt you down and literally kill you today if you happen to be a pietist, Lutheran, or Anabaptist. Respect our roots. Arminius built his soteriological synergism firmly on the doctrine we now call total depravity, and he did so explicitly based on the teachings of Augustine. To the degree Wesley was Arminian, he cannot escape his own roots. Lastly, while I do not know all of the source materials, I suspect some of the quotes are either removed from their specific context or not considered in light of all that Augustine wrote because Augustine did in fact believe in the necessity of scripture and he did so in both word and practice. He himself would not have known what to believe, what to think, and how to argue if he hadn't had scripture. Any argument to the contrary isn't just factually in error it is also presuppositionally incorrect. When Augustine started out he was, as the op observes, Manichaean. They did not believe the OT was relevant or applicable to the Christian life. They were, among other things, trying to avoid Judaizing Christianity. They were wrong. Augustine did not stay Manichaean, so any critic couching their criticism in Augustine's early views is not well-presenting Augustine and is possibly asserting a strawman - either out of ignorance or willful intent. We see that exact same problem playing out in modern times in different ways, thanks a great deal to John Darby and the other restorationists..... most of whom were influenced by Wesley (who was influenced by Arminius who was influenced by Augustine ). Sola Scriptura didn't even exist as a doctrine in Augustine's day. Asking Augustine about Sola Scriptura would be like asking him about the steam engine or the internet. The roots of sola scriptura existed but no formal doctrine. Criticizing Aug over that is a red herring at best and if done knowingly then it's dishonest. But..... anyone not sufficiently informed about Church history wouldn't know they were reading partial glimpses of an older influence. Why doubt the source when s/he is assumed to be honest and fair? Well..... assume Augustine was honest and fair. Realize then there are reasons for the real or perceived conflicts between antiquity and modernity. "Faith will falter if the authority of scripture is shaken."Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine" "The wisdom of what a person says is in direct proportion to his progress in learning the holy scriptures--and I am not speaking of intensive reading or memorization, but real understanding and careful investigation of their meaning. Some people read them but neglect them; by their reading they profit in knowledge, by their neglect they forfeit understanding." Augustine, "On Christiane Doctrine" If ALL of the many quotations are valid reflections of Augustine as a whole, then Augustine did believe in the sufficiency and authority of scripture and Wesley is the slanderer. The same can be said of Augustine in regard to grace and many others core aspect of our faith. What will our forum posts read like in 100 years? I've been in CARM for more than a decade. What does a 2010 post look like compared to one from this year? Have I not changed in thought, doctrine, and practice? Who among you could say a single quote from ten years ago is a valid reflection of your whole? (my apologies for the length) |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Aug 19, 2022 11:12:29 GMT -8
I’m thinking about a book but it’s on Gods wrath and the cross |
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Aug 19, 2022 16:04:59 GMT -8
augustine was incapable to hear Him
directly or to understand His words.
he used the own mind … his ‘natural mind’
(flesh, the Self) to ‘reason’ ….
thus constantly contradicting himself,
e.g., in city of God and free choice texts…
and that mind was always driving,
in the front seat dictating his
interpretations.
…he only understood through that…
such that roman ‘theology’ was glued
on to christianity
(as satans goal)
and still is glued.
and not by just augustine.
God already knew this would happen
that pharisees (esau) would
get their hands on His Words
and corrupt every meaning possible
to prevent their own demise…
soon.
and that jacob
(believers, basically
most of modern christianity)
would follow the corrupt versions.
|
|
|
|
Post by TibiasDad on Aug 20, 2022 14:12:18 GMT -8
You writing a book? There are two very important conditions to understand when reading Augustine, or reading quote mines, or second-hand or third-hand reports about Augustine - especially if motivated by someone holding a different position. The first is Augustine changed. A lot. One of the benefits of reading Aug is the example he sets as someone who's views grew, evolved, changed, and/or matured as he aged, and studied and developed his positions building upon his experience and the times in which he lived. He was imperfect at any and every point in his life. That imperfection does not change his God-given brilliance or God's using him for our benefit. The second matter is the understanding very little had been formally decided upon by Augustine's time. The cannon of scripture wasn't decided. Most of what we now consider (commonly accepted) core doctrine was still often and hotly debated in the first four centuries following the NT era. For example, I'd be very curious to know what evidence Wesley had to say Augustine hated Pelagius. I'm not sure Aug ever met Pel and, if memory serves me right, their personal correspondence (as opposed to their doctrinal debate) was well-mannered and respectful of one another. Augustine was asked to debate Pelagius. He didn't start that debate. The early church was significantly divided in many ways over the matters of inherent human faculties and their abilities as it pertained to the conditions of sin, grace, and salvation. For us in modernity Augustine is a sort of "fulcrum" upon which modern understanding "seesaws," but in his day he was simply one of many competing voices in a world in which little formal doctrine existed. The doctrines hadn't yet been formalized, so there wasn't any externally-existing standard by which all thoughts could be measured. Augustine was influential and critically so, but everything he asserted was vigorously and prayerfully debated. He was not the Pope . He wasn't the despot over the body of Christ. He did not rule the show. Furthermore, the Church's position wasn't formalized until after Augustine had died! The views we now associate with Pelagius were denounced at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and re-examined and re-denounced a century later at the Council of Orange. Augustine was dead on both occasions. This is important because the institutional Church changed a lot following Augustine but those changes were not necessarily changes Augustine would have supported. For example, it was common practice for priests of his era to have concubines (even if they were married!). Augustine kept a mistress who he purported loved genuinely (and I believe may have sired a child with her). Despite that relationship, it was recommended he marry a woman of stature to improve his own standing and he became betrothed to such a woman. However, He had personal difficulties with both relationships, the politics that drove those practices, and his devotion to God. He ended up breaking off the betrothal, ending the relationship with the mistress, and asserting singlehood and celibacy for himself. He did not require that as a standard for all clergy. The RCC's standard of clerical celibacy was influenced by Augustine despite Augustine, not because of his whole example. And it was another three or four centuries before that practice became formalized and standard doctrine. That's not on Augustine. Then there is the matter of Wesley as a source for measuring anything, especially Augustine, because Wesley was a mess. Yep. I said it. There's a certain paradox using Wesley because Wesley is another good example of someone who changed immensely over the course of his lifetime and died with somethings unresolved or undecided. Chief among these is Wesley's wrestling match with piety. Wesley is also important in the historical move away from creedalism to experientialism and the resulting lack of doctrinal and practical uniformity so prevalent today in modernity. The irony is that those who complain most about the lack of uniformity tend to be those asserting a position that did not exist even remotely to the same degree prior to Wesley's methodism. In comparison to Augustine, Wesley would easily be the greater heretic from the historical Protestant perspective. The larger truths of the matter are that it took four hundred years for sound core doctrine, including the canon of scripture to be established and since then there have been various periods within Church history when the doctrines and the practices they beget have been examined, debated, tested, and reformed. Sometime for better, sometimes for worse. Luther, Calvin, and Arminius were all Augustinian. Arminians and Arminian-influenced Wesleyans have no business complaining about Augustine and cannot justly doing so without also indicting themselves and looking foolish for the inconsistency. The only reason that ever happens is because a person doesn't know enough Church history and the flow of thought, doctrine, and practice from the NT era to modernity. All the Protestant Reformers vigorously debated doctrine and practice, sometimes well and sometimes poorly. They did so in a day when to be outside a given norm could prove lethal. No one is going to hunt you down and literally kill you today if you happen to be a pietist, Lutheran, or Anabaptist. Respect our roots. Arminius built his soteriological synergism firmly on the doctrine we now call total depravity, and he did so explicitly based on the teachings of Augustine. To the degree Wesley was Arminian, he cannot escape his own roots. Lastly, while I do not know all of the source materials, I suspect some of the quotes are either removed from their specific context or not considered in light of all that Augustine wrote because Augustine did in fact believe in the necessity of scripture and he did so in both word and practice. He himself would not have known what to believe, what to think, and how to argue if he hadn't had scripture. Any argument to the contrary isn't just factually in error it is also presuppositionally incorrect. When Augustine started out he was, as the op observes, Manichaean. They did not believe the OT was relevant or applicable to the Christian life. They were, among other things, trying to avoid Judaizing Christianity. They were wrong. Augustine did not stay Manichaean, so any critic couching their criticism in Augustine's early views is not well-presenting Augustine and is possibly asserting a strawman - either out of ignorance or willful intent. We see that exact same problem playing out in modern times in different ways, thanks a great deal to John Darby and the other restorationists..... most of whom were influenced by Wesley (who was influenced by Arminius who was influenced by Augustine ). Sola Scriptura didn't even exist as a doctrine in Augustine's day. Asking Augustine about Sola Scriptura would be like asking him about the steam engine or the internet. The roots of sola scriptura existed but no formal doctrine. Criticizing Aug over that is a red herring at best and if done knowingly then it's dishonest. But..... anyone not sufficiently informed about Church history wouldn't know they were reading partial glimpses of an older influence. Why doubt the source when s/he is assumed to be honest and fair? Well..... assume Augustine was honest and fair. Realize then there are reasons for the real or perceived conflicts between antiquity and modernity. "Faith will falter if the authority of scripture is shaken."Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine" "The wisdom of what a person says is in direct proportion to his progress in learning the holy scriptures--and I am not speaking of intensive reading or memorization, but real understanding and careful investigation of their meaning. Some people read them but neglect them; by their reading they profit in knowledge, by their neglect they forfeit understanding." Augustine, "On Christiane Doctrine" If ALL of the many quotations are valid reflections of Augustine as a whole, then Augustine did believe in the sufficiency and authority of scripture and Wesley is the slanderer. The same can be said of Augustine in regard to grace and many others core aspect of our faith. What will our forum posts read like in 100 years? I've been in CARM for more than a decade. What does a 2010 post look like compared to one from this year? Have I not changed in thought, doctrine, and practice? Who among you could say a single quote from ten years ago is a valid reflection of your whole? (my apologies for the length)All of us change, so why would we expect Wesley to not change. But the root of Wesley's teachings, especially concerning holiness or heart, is very consistent throughout his ministry. Your near condemnation of Wesley is a broad and subjective rant with zero evidence for, or examples of this alleged "wrestling match with piety". Do I think Wesley perfect? Far from it! His war of words with Toplady were unfortunate on both sides of the issue, and I lament Wesley's actions even more than Toplady's, for they were more inconsistent with his teachings. Furthermore, who's to say that the role of experience did not need be reintroduced into the equation! Any doctrine that has not feet for sod is of little value! The Christian life is one of experience, and doctrine that cannot be lived is not worthy of the gospel! Wesley is not a heretic of any kind, to any degree! Doug |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2022 14:47:29 GMT -8
There are two very important conditions to understand when reading Augustine, or reading quote mines, or second-hand or third-hand reports about Augustine - especially if motivated by someone holding a different position. The first is Augustine changed. A lot. One of the benefits of reading Aug is the example he sets as someone who's views grew, evolved, changed, and/or matured as he aged, and studied and developed his positions building upon his experience and the times in which he lived. He was imperfect at any and every point in his life. That imperfection does not change his God-given brilliance or God's using him for our benefit. The second matter is the understanding very little had been formally decided upon by Augustine's time. The cannon of scripture wasn't decided. Most of what we now consider (commonly accepted) core doctrine was still often and hotly debated in the first four centuries following the NT era........................ All of us change, so why would we expect Wesley to not change. But the root of Wesley's teachings, especially concerning holiness or heart, is very consistent throughout his ministry. Your near condemnation of Wesley is a broad and subjective rant with zero evidence for, or examples of this alleged "wrestling match with piety". Do I think Wesley perfect? Far from it! His war of words with Toplady were unfortunate on both sides of the issue, and I lament Wesley's actions even more than Toplady's, for they were more inconsistent with his teachings. Furthermore, who's to say that the role of experience did not need be reintroduced into the equation! Any doctrine that has not feet for sod is of little value! The Christian life is one of experience, and doctrine that cannot be lived is not worthy of the gospel! Wesley is not a heretic of any kind, to any degree! Doug Why would we expect Augustine to not change? Did I not say both men were examples to us of Godly men changing, evolving, and maturing? As I said, Augustine cannot be indicted without also indicting Wesley, and the rhetoric of "Why would I not expect change?" is a red herring. This op isn't about Wesley, Doug. You dion't need to defend him. This op is about Augustine and what I posted is true and correct. If you (or anyone else) is feeling piqued then look first at yourselves, not Welsey, Augustine, or me! Furthermore, I never said Welsey's teachings concerning the holiness weren't consistent (they were not, but that 's not the topic of this op). Neither did I condemn Wesley. Neither did I "rant" Red herring, red herring, straw man, and non sequitur ironically do not reflect any holiness of the heart!!! They do not address the substance of what I posted, either. Your views on whether Wesley was perfect aren't relevant, either. Another red herring. When you speak about his "unfortunate" words it doesn't matter what the other person did or didn't do. You're implicitly acknowledging a problem on Wesley's part. And I wasn't referencing Toplady! I am glad you lament Wesley's actions but that has nothing to do with the op or my op-reply, other than to confirm he hadn't attained the piety he sought (and expected of others). No one said experience didn't need to be "entered into the equation" whatever in heaven and hell that's supposed to mean. Christianity has always had some degree of experientialism in its soteriology and nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. Yes, the Christian life is one of experience and Wesley was not the first to say that. Neither did I say Wesley was a heretic. What I actually said was, " In comparison to Augustine, Wesley would easily be the greater heretic from the historical Protestant perspective." Context. If you want to discuss, debate, or refute that claim then start your own op and invite me over but don't hijack this op. This op is about Augustine, not Wesley. The only reason I even mentioned Wesley is because the op mentioned him and quoted examples of Wesley making baseless claims, quote mining Augustine, behaving in a manner inconsistent with a holiness, AND implicitly contradicting himself because he too stood one precedents established by Augustine! You should have kept the posts op-relevant. So here's what I'll offer: You, Doug, edit out the red herrings, non sequiturs, and straw men and I will delete this entire post and start over with whatever op-relevant content you have to contribute to this discussion. I think what you'll be left with in one single sentence. Or don't. You choose. I stand by what I posted in my op-reply. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2022 15:16:26 GMT -8
The consensus view asserts Augustine developed his later doctrines ca. 396 CE while writing Ad Simplicianum as a result of studying scripture. His early De libero arbitrio argued for traditional free choice refuting Manichaean determinism, but his anti-Pelagian writings rejected any human ability to believe without God giving faith. Kenneth M. Wilson's study is the first work applying the comprehensive methodology of reading systematically and chronologically through Augustine's entire extant corpus (works, sermons, and letters 386-430 CE), and examining his doctrinal development. The author explores Augustine's later theology within the prior philosophical-religious context of free choice versus deterministic arguments. This analysis demonstrates Augustine persisted in traditional views until 412 CE and his theological transition was primarily due to his prior Stoic, Neoplatonic, and Manichaean influences. Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'non-Free Free Will': A Comprehensive Methodology (Augustine) Augustine's Letters #185 Ch.6: "It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word." (Augustine) Augustine's Letters #185 Ch.6: "Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction? Although even men who have not been compelled, but only led astray, are received by their loving mother with more affection if they are recalled to her bosom through the enforcement of terrible but salutary laws, and are the objects of far more deep congratulation than those whom she had never lost. Is it not a part of the care of the shepherd, when any sheep have left the flock, even though not violently forced away, but led astray by tender words and coaxing blandishments, to bring them back to the fold of his master when he has found them, by the fear or even the pain of the whip, if they show symptoms of resistance; especially since, if they multiply with growing abundance among the fugitive slaves and robbers, he has the more right in that the mark of the master is recognized on them," Calvinism inherited from Augustine the iconoclasm against the physical world that Platonism is anchored on. Some of his teachings that crept into the church : 1. Absolute predestination (God decides who will be saved/doomed) 2. Impossibility of falling away or apostasy (Eternal Security) 3. Man has no free will (monergism) 4. One cannot know if he/she is saved (since also those who are carnal minded might be saved) 5. God commands impossibilities (God requesting man to stop sinning which he cannot do) 6. The supreme authority of the Roman church 7. Purgatory 8. Prayers for the dead 9. The damnation of unbaptized infants and adults 10. Sex is sinful also within a marriage because depravity is inherited (hence the rise of monasteries) 11. Mary never committed sin, and we do well to worship her/pray to/through her 12. The gifts of healing, prophecy and tongues have ceased 13. Apocrypha is included in the Scriptures 14. Eucharist is necessary for salvation 15. Giving people the official “saint” title (catholic saints ) hope this helps !!! Have you read Augustine, particularly the sources quoted in this thread? Are these quotes coming from a second-hand or third-hand source? In other words, are you posting another person's views on Augustine without citing that source? Are they be citing without reference as if this work and these views are your own? Because if so then it is not helpful. Why is Calvin being mentioned? Augustine did not "mentor" Calvin. They lived a millenium apart from one another. Wesley was Arminian. Arminius was Augustinian in his belief humanity is incapable of coming to God unaided. Wesley agreed. THAT is what is op-relevant! Why the failure to address these realities? I have quoted Arminius referencing Augustine scores of times in a variety of forums, including exchanges with you, civ, and you, Doug. You two KNOW what I posted is correct. " .........Nay, having turned away from the light of his own mind and his chief good, which is God, or, at least, having turned towards that chief good not in the manner in which he ought to have done, and besides having turned in mind and heart towards an inferior good, he transgressed the command given to him for life. By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is Under The Dominion of Sin. For "to whom any one yields himself a servant to obey," and "of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage," and is his regularly assigned slave."
"In this state [the state of sin], the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man." (from "Disputation 11: On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers")There it is for all to see: Arminius quoting Augustine to justify Arminius' soteriology. The Protestant Reformers all agreed: In his sinful state humanity is individually and collectively incapable of coming to God apart from Christ. The individual reformers may have differed on that part about Christ's part, but on the incapacity of humanity they were wholly in agreement. And Wesley held that same point of view, a view that was directly predicated on Augustine's examination of scripture, rigorous debate over the course of many years, and maturation as a Christian. Wesley can't indict Augustine the way this op presents without also indicting himself. Neither can you, @civic, or you, TibiasDad. It's not factually correct or logically rational. Address that. Furthermore, Wesley was wrong about Augustine's view of scripture. I provided alternative quotes directly from Augustine (I didn't find them is second or third-hand soruces) demonstrably showing Augustine did hold scripture authoritative and the human interpretation subordinate and subject to the former. At a bare minimum take all those quotes together in their original contexts to understand the man's views. Address that. Agustine was an imperfect man with imperfect views. If you're going to put him on trial then do it right. However, few of us here are strictly Augustinian. As I noted in my op, Christian thought, doctrine, and practice has evolved. Wesley is proof of this. Wesley is also standing on Augustine's shoulders. If he was going to put Augustine on trial he too should have done it right. So when we here in modernity see the flaws of both men we should necessarily not wholly side with either of them! Christ crucified and resurrected as revealed in the written word. That is the standard. Not Augustine. Not Calvin, Arminius, or Wesley. Any one of those men can be proved wrong but that does not make you or me correct. Address that. These things are op-relevant. |
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Aug 20, 2022 16:21:23 GMT -8
why would Christian thought evolve? I see that yes, modern Christianity has indeed 'evolved' to where it is.... so, granted, it sadly happened.
But, that would be a mistake and reflects the current bad state of things. Is not He who never changes who Christians should listen to?
and not to theologians? |
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Aug 20, 2022 16:22:46 GMT -8
The quote about Augustine's strange view of the feminine comes from a book easily found on Amazon, an anthology titled On Genesis, which collects all Augustine's own writings regarding the book of genesis. I have about 20 more ugly and similar citations from that same book of Augustine's, on the same topic including the quote civic posted. It was very platonic of him though, since in the pagan heaven there are only males and certainly Augustine classes female as utter synonym to sin. Explicitly, in the text cited. Augustine equates man with mind (as a platonic substance) and female with matter (as an accident.) Yes...he is platonic in his categories, and sees God also as a platonic form. This comes up more so in his book De Trinitate, which is where rome got its weird idea of God as a substance.
note that in many modern christian circles, souls are neuter and there are no females in heaven as well. This is a confusion between the pagan Greek conception of the soul with the Hebrew one.
exactly Plato....the neuter pagan soul.
|
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Aug 20, 2022 16:35:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by TibiasDad on Aug 20, 2022 17:43:09 GMT -8
The consensus view asserts Augustine developed his later doctrines ca. 396 CE while writing Ad Simplicianum as a result of studying scripture. His early De libero arbitrio argued for traditional free choice refuting Manichaean determinism, but his anti-Pelagian writings rejected any human ability to believe without God giving faith. Kenneth M. Wilson's study is the first work applying the comprehensive methodology of reading systematically and chronologically through Augustine's entire extant corpus (works, sermons, and letters 386-430 CE), and examining his doctrinal development. The author explores Augustine's later theology within the prior philosophical-religious context of free choice versus deterministic arguments. This analysis demonstrates Augustine persisted in traditional views until 412 CE and his theological transition was primarily due to his prior Stoic, Neoplatonic, and Manichaean influences. Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'non-Free Free Will': A Comprehensive Methodology (Augustine) Augustine's Letters #185 Ch.6: "It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word." (Augustine) Augustine's Letters #185 Ch.6: "Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction? Although even men who have not been compelled, but only led astray, are received by their loving mother with more affection if they are recalled to her bosom through the enforcement of terrible but salutary laws, and are the objects of far more deep congratulation than those whom she had never lost. Is it not a part of the care of the shepherd, when any sheep have left the flock, even though not violently forced away, but led astray by tender words and coaxing blandishments, to bring them back to the fold of his master when he has found them, by the fear or even the pain of the whip, if they show symptoms of resistance; especially since, if they multiply with growing abundance among the fugitive slaves and robbers, he has the more right in that the mark of the master is recognized on them," Calvinism inherited from Augustine the iconoclasm against the physical world that Platonism is anchored on. Some of his teachings that crept into the church : 1. Absolute predestination (God decides who will be saved/doomed) 2. Impossibility of falling away or apostasy (Eternal Security) 3. Man has no free will (monergism) 4. One cannot know if he/she is saved (since also those who are carnal minded might be saved) 5. God commands impossibilities (God requesting man to stop sinning which he cannot do) 6. The supreme authority of the Roman church 7. Purgatory 8. Prayers for the dead 9. The damnation of unbaptized infants and adults 10. Sex is sinful also within a marriage because depravity is inherited (hence the rise of monasteries) 11. Mary never committed sin, and we do well to worship her/pray to/through her 12. The gifts of healing, prophecy and tongues have ceased 13. Apocrypha is included in the Scriptures 14. Eucharist is necessary for salvation 15. Giving people the official “saint” title (catholic saints ) hope this helps !!! Have you read Augustine, particularly the sources quoted in this thread? Are these quotes coming from a second-hand or third-hand source? In other words, are you posting another person's views on Augustine without citing that source? Are they be citing without reference as if this work and these views are your own? Because if so then it is not helpful. Why is Calvin being mentioned? Augustine did not "mentor" Calvin. They lived a millenium apart from one another. Wesley was Arminian. Arminius was Augustinian in his belief humanity is incapable of coming to God unaided. Wesley agreed. THAT is what is op-relevant! Why the failure to address these realities? I have quoted Arminius referencing Augustine scores of times in a variety of forums, including exchanges with you, civ, and you, Doug. You two KNOW what I posted is correct. " .........Nay, having turned away from the light of his own mind and his chief good, which is God, or, at least, having turned towards that chief good not in the manner in which he ought to have done, and besides having turned in mind and heart towards an inferior good, he transgressed the command given to him for life. By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is Under The Dominion of Sin. For "to whom any one yields himself a servant to obey," and "of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage," and is his regularly assigned slave."
"In this state [the state of sin], the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man." (from "Disputation 11: On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers")There it is for all to see: Arminius quoting Augustine to justify Arminius' soteriology. The Protestant Reformers all agreed: In his sinful state humanity is individually and collectively incapable of coming to God apart from Christ. The individual reformers may have differed on that part about Christ's part, but on the incapacity of humanity they were wholly in agreement. And Wesley held that same point of view, a view that was directly predicated on Augustine's examination of scripture, rigorous debate over the course of many years, and maturation as a Christian. Wesley can't indict Augustine the way this op presents without also indicting himself. Neither can you, @civic, or you, TibiasDad . It's not factually correct or logically rational. Address that. Furthermore, Wesley was wrong about Augustine's view of scripture. I provided alternative quotes directly from Augustine (I didn't find them is second or third-hand soruces) demonstrably showing Augustine did hold scripture authoritative and the human interpretation subordinate and subject to the former. At a bare minimum take all those quotes together in their original contexts to understand the man's views. Address that. Agustine was an imperfect man with imperfect views. If you're going to put him on trial then do it right. However, few of us here are strictly Augustinian. As I noted in my op, Christian thought, doctrine, and practice has evolved. Wesley is proof of this. Wesley is also standing on Augustine's shoulders. If he was going to put Augustine on trial he too should have done it right. So when we here in modernity see the flaws of both men we should necessarily not wholly side with either of them! Christ crucified and resurrected as revealed in the written word. That is the standard. Not Augustine. Not Calvin, Arminius, or Wesley. Any one of those men can be proved wrong but that does not make you or me correct. Address that. These things are op-relevant. You made it about Wesley when you seek to discredit his assessment of Augustine by attacking Wesley's personal character and Christian life! My reaction to the OP is irrelevant because I don't have a definitive option one way or the other. (I do think, that, for whatever reason, Augustine retrieved or renewed his views of Gnosticism in his arguments against Pelagius, for there were no Ante-Nician CF sources from which he could have drawn such anti-freewill/total inability sentiments.) But I do have an opinion on Wesley, and that is why I voiced my objection to your tearing him down! Doug |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2022 6:53:51 GMT -8
My reaction to the OP is irrelevant because I don't have a definitive option one way or the other. Doug Don't expect me to entertain irrelevant content. |
|
. He wasn't the despot over the body of Christ. He did not rule the show. Furthermore, the Church's position wasn't formalized until after Augustine had died! The views we now associate with Pelagius were denounced at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and re-examined and re-denounced a century later at the Council of Orange. Augustine was dead on both occasions.
