|
|
Post by TibiasDad on Aug 21, 2022 9:39:13 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. And yet you have, however briefly! What about my parenthetical though regarding Augustine's reversion to Gnostic inability? Is that no relevant? Doug |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2022 10:18:46 GMT -8
Don't expect me to entertain irrelevant content. And yet you have, however briefly! What about my parenthetical though regarding Augustine's reversion to Gnostic inability? Is that not relevant? Doug That's simply not true. If the relevance of my comments was not understood, then I encourage you to go back and re-read what is posted and re-read it as many times as it takes to understand the relevance to this op. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2022 12:36:09 GMT -8
3. Man has no free will (monergism) Oh my goodness. Surprised I did not catch this the first time around. From where did this notion monergism means man has no free will come? Was this a list Wilson or someone else made? Monergism simply states regeneration is solely the work of the Holy Spirit and not in conjunction with the will of the creature being saved. It does not deny the existence of the will, only its soteriological efficacy. |
|
|
|
Post by hansen on Aug 21, 2022 12:58:43 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 !!! I may get back on this but, to be fair, 1) Augustine was not Calvinistic-to that extreme- even though in his arguments against Pelagious he may seem so at times due to the need to emphasize grace. He also made many statements supporting the role of man's will playing a role. 2) Pelagius did not act with innocent saintliness at all times-even though many anti-Agustine types seem to structure things that way. Augustine would become frustrated when the monk would change his postions at times to seem more orthodox. The biggest positive in it all is that the doctrines on the absilute necessity of grace for the salvation of man would be firmly laid down by the church some 75 years after Augustine's debates on the matter, using much of his writings. 3) Augustine wrote a huge amount of material. And He changed some of his concepts over time. Many differnt postions can be supported based on those writings if one looks selectively. 4) He contributed greatly to western thought, for the good, in philosophy and other areas but most particularly in theology, of course. He wasn't right about everything by any means and the church didn't accept everything he taught or stated. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Aug 22, 2022 5:07:56 GMT -8
3. Man has no free will (monergism) Oh my goodness. Surprised I did not catch this the first time around. From where did this notion monergism means man has no free will come? Was this a list Wilson or someone else made? Monergism simply states regeneration is solely the work of the Holy Spirit and not in conjunction with the will of the creature being saved. It does not deny the existence of the will, only its soteriological efficacy. It would better read " libertarian " free will imho. |
|
|
|
Post by hansen on Aug 22, 2022 5:54:49 GMT -8
Oh my goodness. Surprised I did not catch this the first time around. From where did this notion monergism means man has no free will come? Was this a list Wilson or someone else made? Monergism simply states regeneration is solely the work of the Holy Spirit and not in conjunction with the will of the creature being saved. It does not deny the existence of the will, only its soteriological efficacy. It would better read " libertarian " free will imho. It might better yet read "meaningful" free will imho. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Aug 22, 2022 6:36:11 GMT -8
Oh my goodness. Surprised I did not catch this the first time around. From where did this notion monergism means man has no free will come? Was this a list Wilson or someone else made? Monergism simply states regeneration is solely the work of the Holy Spirit and not in conjunction with the will of the creature being saved. It does not deny the existence of the will, only its soteriological efficacy. It would better read " libertarian " free will imho. Free will, be definition, means one has the ability to chose between different things. If one is unable to chose (as fatalism suggests) then in reality, it is not free will. In the gospel. We have two choices. remain in unbelief, or repent and come to faith in Christ calling n his name for mercy A calvinist states the second option is impossible. UNless one is born again, then they basically will chose that whether they wanted to or not. Which is also not free will.. I am not sure how a calvinist can suggest they believe in any type of free will, when it is not even an option |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 9:24:32 GMT -8
Oh my goodness. Surprised I did not catch this the first time around. From where did this notion monergism means man has no free will come? Was this a list Wilson or someone else made? Monergism simply states regeneration is solely the work of the Holy Spirit and not in conjunction with the will of the creature being saved. It does not deny the existence of the will, only its soteriological efficacy. It would better read " libertarian " free will imho. It would be better to leave the word "monergism" out in reference to Calvin. He was monergistic, but monergism is not limited to Calvin. Monergism is like a field and Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and scores of others are simply individual blades of grass in that field. The overarching point of my op-reply is this: the influence of Augustine is pervasive. He influenced monergists and synergists alike. Therefore, everyone and anyone should be careful and just when criticizing him (or any other influence) lest we end up cutting off the branch on which we're sitting. And look foolish on the way down. Augustine could be wrong and monergism still be right. Conversely, just because Augustine said it (or Ignatius or Martyr) doesn't make it so. We want to make sure a false-cause argument is not being asserted. Happens often when appeals to the ECFs are attempted. It happens every day in forums around the world. |
|
|
|
Post by rockson on Aug 30, 2022 4:08:33 GMT -8
Augustine could be wrong and monergism still be right. Conversely, just because Augustine said it (or Ignatius or Martyr) doesn't make it so. We want to make sure a false-cause argument is not being asserted. Happens often when appeals to the ECFs are attempted. It happens every day in forums around the world. People are always wanting to pigeon hole people into camps. Christians should just bring forth what THEY BELIEVE by quoting the word of God. People here KNOW I certainly am not a Calvinist nor other variations of it called by similar names. Even with somebody or anybody in the middle ages who would basically agree with me it does not have to be put down "Well you're a such and such" I should ONLY be saying that I am of Christ! What logic is there in saying I"m a such and such where there's some places where I'm not in agreement. We don't look to men to be in their camps but many or some take pride in saying they're under the banner of a certain man other then Christ. John the Baptist said I (or we men) MUST decrease and God (Jesus) must increase. People must pull back from the hero worship of men for if one of them falls that they've followed SO DEVOUTLY their foundations are shaken. People following their heroes generally speaking will downplay their capacity to understand the scriptures'. Who am I compared to them they're tempted to believe. If you hold to that you can't be like a noble Berean who compared scripture with scripture themselves. Everyone can search the scriptures , compare them and believe the Holy Spirit will enlighten them. Yes there are teachers that can or might help but their words and thoughts are not "Thus Saith The Lord" and never should we allow them to be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2022 7:39:13 GMT -8
People are always wanting to pigeon hole people into camps. Christians should just bring forth what THEY BELIEVE by quoting the word of God. People here KNOW I certainly am not a Calvinist nor other variations of it called by similar names. Even with somebody or anybody in the middle ages who would basically agree with me it does not have to be put down "Well you're a such and such" I should ONLY be saying that I am of Christ! What logic is there in saying I"m a such and such where there's some places where I'm not in agreement. We don't look to men to be in their camps but many or some take pride in saying they're under the banner of a certain man other then Christ. John the Baptist said I (or we men) MUST decrease and God (Jesus) must increase. People must pull back from the hero worship of men for if one of them falls that they've followed SO DEVOUTLY their foundations are shaken. People following their heroes generally speaking will downplay their capacity to understand the scriptures'. Who am I compared to them they're tempted to believe. If you hold to that you can't be like a noble Berean who compared scripture with scripture themselves. Everyone can search the scriptures , compare them and believe the Holy Spirit will enlighten them. Yes there are teachers that can or might help but their words and thoughts are not "Thus Saith The Lord" and never should we allow them to be. All well and good but the simple fact this specific particular board is named for its factions. Everyone coming into the Arm & Cal board in any forum knows they are entering a board that is already defined and defined by two very specific points of view. Everyone enters with the discussion already polarized for us. It would be best if forums title the board "Soteriology," "Doctirnes of Salvation," or "Monergism versus Synergism" because that would provide less limits, but they don't. As a consequences Traditionalists, Pelagians, Wesleyans and other synergists end up 1) sounding like they believe things they don't, and 2) being perceived on way when they are another. The same thing happens to Augustinians, Lutherans, Calvinists and other monergists. This op isn't much about soteriology. It's definitely not much about Augustinian soteriology. Wesley, Calvin, and women don't have anything to do with Augustinian soteriology (and I'm not sure I want to take advice from a never-married man who never married the concubine with whom he'd sired a child or broke a betrothal contract). One of the few good things about the three opening posts is that they quote Augustine in his own words (even if they may have been taken from second-hand sources). There is a lot that warrants correction because many of the things listed as Augustinian influences found in Calvin 1) preceded Augustine and aren't specifically his views and 2) were held by many of the reformers, including Arminius. These opening posts would have been better served in the Theology board where discourse wasn't a priori limited to two points of view that have little to do with Augustine. But these things happen in discussion boards so we do the best we can and try to learn from one another. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Aug 30, 2022 7:43:27 GMT -8
All well and good but the simple fact this specific particular board is named for its factions. Everyone coming into the Arm & Cal board in any forum knows they are entering a board that is already defined and defined by two very specific points of view. Everyone enters with the discussion already polarized for us. It would be best if forums title the board "Soteriology," "Doctirnes of Salvation," or "Monergism versus Synergism" because that would provide less limits, but they don't. As a consequences Traditionalists, Pelagians, Wesleyans and other synergists end up 1) sounding like they believe things they don't, and 2) being perceived on way when they are another. The same thing happens to Augustinians, Lutherans, Calvinists and other monergists. This op isn't much about soteriology. It's definitely not much about Augustinian soteriology. Wesley, Calvin, and women don't have anything to do with Augustinian soteriology (and I'm not sure I want to take advice from a never-married man who never married the concubine with whom he'd sired a child or broke a betrothal contract). One of the few good things about the three opening posts is that they quote Augustine in his own words (even if they may have been taken from second-hand sources). There is a lot that warrants correction because many of the things listed as Augustinian influences found in Calvin 1) preceded Augustine and aren't specifically his views and 2) were held by many of the reformers, including Arminius. These opening posts would have been better served in the Theology board where discourse wasn't a priori limited to two points of view that have little to do with Augustine. But these things happen in discussion boards so we do the best we can and try to learn from one another.
Good suggestion I will ask the admin to change it to Monergism and Synergism. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Aug 30, 2022 7:47:59 GMT -8
@josheb consider it done my friend !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2022 8:41:06 GMT -8
@josheb consider it done my friend ! I hate to be a nudge but "Soteriology" is the best option because many young Christians do not have a clue what "monergism" or "synergism" mean. Many won't know what "Soteriology" means, either but they should. If you all do change the name to whatever it is called, then let me recommend you or one of the admins post something in the front of the board explaining the board as one in which the doctrine of salvation, or soteriology, is discussed. Maybe include a note saying the reason for the broader title is intentional so as not to limit discourse solely to the views of Calvin and Arminius. Maybe I'm overthinking it. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Aug 30, 2022 8:48:31 GMT -8
@josheb consider it done my friend ! I hate to be a nudge but "Soteriology" is the best option because many young Christians do not have a clue what "monergism" or "synergism" mean. Many won't know what "Soteriology" means, either but they should. If you all do change the name to whatever it is called, then let me recommend you or one of the admins post something in the front of the board explaining the board as one in which the doctrine of salvation, or soteriology, is discussed. Maybe include a note saying the reason for the broader title is intentional so as not to limit discourse solely to the views of Calvin and Arminius. Maybe I'm overthinking it. are you able to do this ? Soteriology and then with a note on Monergism and Synergism and under those come Arminians , Calvinists . Category is Soteriology, sub is Monergism and synergism then under that would be more specific differences with Calvinism and Arminianism . Thanks |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2022 8:53:23 GMT -8
One more note about Augustine: His days as a Manichaean occurred long before his conversion to Christ. The Manichaeans were sort of like our modern-day fundamentalists but explicitly of a Catholic persuasion. Augustine had studied the Greek Philosophers, was briefly persuaded by the Manichaean and he alternated between points of view, aparently as an easily influenceable young man. All while living in North Africa. He moved to Italy and studied with the Platonist Catholics (or is it the Catholic Platonists  ). He was a very skeptical individual and critical in thought, no doubt due to his studies in Rhetoric and all the years he found and income and recognition teaching it. He repudiated the Manichaean beliefs and their methodology. It's important to remember his "Confessions" was written early on and it is not wholly autobiographical. He's writing about a young man whose experience is similar, not identical, to his own. He embellished. His content from "On Christian Doctrine" was written later in life but he began writing that after he'd been a Christian for only ten or fifteen years. Augustine didn't come to Christ until he was about 35 years old and within a decade he was the Bishop of Hippo! He'd been walking around under the roof of Catholicism for decades but didn't come to Jesus til his mid-30s. |
|
). He was a very skeptical individual and critical in thought, no doubt due to his studies in Rhetoric and all the years he found and income and recognition teaching it. He repudiated the Manichaean beliefs and their methodology. It's important to remember his "Confessions" was written early on and it is not wholly autobiographical. He's writing about a young man whose experience is similar, not identical, to his own. He embellished. His content from "On Christian Doctrine" was written later in life but he began writing that after he'd been a Christian for only ten or fifteen years. Augustine didn't come to Christ until he was about 35 years old and within a decade he was the Bishop of Hippo! He'd been walking around under the roof of Catholicism for decades but didn't come to Jesus til his mid-30s.