Posted on 03/07/2015 2:48:45 PM PST by RaceBannon
The Catholic Church came before the 4 gospels. There are 27 books in the NT because THE CATHOLIC CHURCH determined this number, not Jimmy Swaggart and not anyone on FR. Without the Catholic Church, first safeguarding the Bible, then compiling and canonizing the Bible, there would be no Bible. History is a hell of thing to deny, but you can give it your best shot.
So anyway, here is my post to Vladimir in another thread. The italics are his comments, followed by my replies: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3265374/posts?page=105
But it isn’t.
First of all, your bloggers are incompetent. This one, for example, cites this quotation to prove that Augustine denies the Final Preserverence of the Elect:
"I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said." (On The Gift Of Perseverance)
But the fool does not realize that Augustine here calls Perseverance to be a "gift of God." And if it is a "gift," that means it is given gratuitously, by Augustine's own definition-- that is, not because of our faithfulness or our good works, but by the unmerited grace of God. According to Augustine, since he held to baptismal regeneration, people who were regenerated could lose their salvation; but Augustine is also a Monergist (which is what Calvinism is built on!), and thus whether a person falls away or not depends on whether or not God upholds them by grace. Thus, according to Augustine, the Elect of God can never lose their salvation; nor can anyone lose their salvation because they resisted effectual grace, but, rather, they lose their salvation because they are not given grace at all.
"... the human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but obtains freedom by grace; when the feeling of delight has been imparted through. the same grace, the human will is formed to endure; it is strengthened with unconquerable fortitude; controlled by grace, it never will perish, but, if grace forsake it, it will straightway fall; by the Lord's free mercy it is converted to good, and once converted it perseveres in good; the direction of the human will toward good, and after direction its continuation in good, depend solely upon God's will, not upon any merit of man. Thus there is left to man such free will, if we please so to call it, as he elsewhere describes: that except through grace the will can neither be converted to God nor abide in God; and whatever it can do it is able to do only through grace. "(Augustine, Aurelius. Augustine's Writings on Grace and Free WIll (Kindle Locations 45-46). Monergism Books. Kindle Edition.)
“But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none. John 6:39 Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. 1 John 2:19”. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints) “I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling.” (Augustine, On the Perseverance of the Saints)
"But you write that "these brethren will not have this perseverance so preached as that it cannot be obtained by prayer or lost by obstinacy." In this they are little careful in considering what they say. For we are speaking of that perseverance whereby one perseveres unto the end, and if this is given, one does persevere unto the end; but if one does not persevere unto the end, it is not given, which I have already sufficiently discussed above. (Ibid, Ch. 11)
"Will any one dare to say that this perseverance is not the gift of God, and that so great a possession as this is ours in such wise that if any one have it the apostle could not say to him, 'For what hast thou which thou hast not received?'[ 2] since he has this in such a manner as that he has not received it?" To this, indeed, we are not able to deny, that perseverance in good, progressing even to the end, is also a great gift of God; and that it exists not save it come from Him of whom it is written, "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." (Augustine, Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 10)
Your other bloggers make the same mistake for some odd reason, I suspect more out of laziness than malice. Your "protestant" blogger also makes the very weird assertion:
The Augustinian definition of double predestination, at least as explained by later writers, is not Calvinistic. Augustine himself did not focus much on the double aspect of predestination and explain what the predestination of the reprobate means. However, the later Augustinian tradition as developed by Prosper of Aquitaine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and ultimately the Council of Orange, when defining double predestination always made the point that when men are predestined unto death, they are only predestined based upon foreseen future demerits.
Now, who cares what "later Augustinian" writers have to say about it (though this fool does not even consider them all, just as Jansen or others). Augustine did not believe reprobation or predestination was based on "foreseen merits", but explicitly denies this:
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.” And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who “being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “ (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
Augustine also explicitly contradicts your modern day Popes on the subject of universal grace. For example, compare how your Popes deal with the interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4, and then read Augustine's take:
"In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the sole mediation of Christ: '[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all' (1 Tim 2:4-6)." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Dominus Jesus, n. 13)
"Vatican II adds that the Church is 'a sacrament. . . of the unity of all mankind.' [Lumen Gentium, n. 1] Obviously it is a question of the unity -- which the human race which in itself is differentiated in various ways -- has from God and in God. This unity has its roots in the mystery of creation and acquires a new dimension in the mystery of the Redemption, which is ordered to universal salvation. Since God 'wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,' [1 Tim 2:4] the Redemption includes all humanity and in a certain way all of creation. In the same universal dimension of Redemption the Holy Spirit is acting, by virtue of the 'departure of Christ.' Therefore the Church, rooted through her own mystery in the Trinitarian plan of salvation with good reason regards herself as the 'sacrament of the unity of the whole human race.' She knows that she is such through the power of the Holy Spirit, of which power she is a sign and instrument in the fulfillment of God's salvific plan." (Pope John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem, n. 64)
Now read Augustine:
“Or, it is said, “Who will have all men to be saved;” not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by “all men,” the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, “For kings, and for all that are in authority,” who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,” that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” [I Tim. 2:1-4]. God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: “Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb” [Luke 11:42]. For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by “every herb,” every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by “all men,” every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if “He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth” [Ps. 115:3]. as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.” (Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 103. Interpretation of the Expression in I Tim. 2:4: “Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved”.)
This is also exactly the Calvinistic interpretation of this same verse.
Your links have a whole lot of other claims in them that would take too long for me to sort out. However, I think this is good enough to demonstrate that Augustine was a Monergist, and therefore was in opposition to Romanist Synergism/works-righteousness.
It is hard isn’t it, Race, having to endure Papists “pulling the Bible on us,”
These who choose the ECF over scripture.
Who, in thread after thread, attack Sola Scriptura.
And in support of the Papacy, which for hundreds of years KEPT PEOPLE FROM THE SCRIPTURE… turn in your Bibles or be arrested.
FRoman Catholics deny this, of course, but Mr. Rogers, in post 43, on this thread…
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3263031/posts?q=1&;page=51
states the truth. This quote about “Biblia Prohibita” from his post, I thought most striking:
“The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264). In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above.
Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: ‘Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.’”
Observing how these Papists handle the scripture, is almost like Obama when he, on occasion, has tried to use the scripture on us. What a joke. Neither Obama or these anti-Sola Scriptura’s know what they are talking about.
Correction. It was Mr. Rogers in post 55, in this thread…
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3263031/posts?q=1&;page=51
Post 55 not post 43.
The OP mentions the controversy with the Donatists and also asserts that Augustine believed in common Romanist tropes about the authority of the church above the scripture.
Interestingly, when Augustine actually debated with the Donatists, he did not do so the way Roman Papists do, always thumping their chest about their authority, but directly appealed to the authority of scripture:
“The question has been proposed: Is the Church of Christ among the Catholics or among the Donatists? This needs to be determined from specific and clear citations in Holy Scripture. First, evidence is brought forth from the Old Testament and then from the New Testament.” (Augustine, Introduction, On the Unity of the Church. My emphasis)
. . .
“But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case” (Chapter 5). (My emphasis)
Webster says that Augustine basically says,
“Since both parties adhere to the truth of Scripture and believe them to be the word of God, it is scripture which should be the final arbiter.”
Augustine writes, “just as this doesn’t need an interpreter” several times in his appeal to the Donatists. Augustine believed that theses Scriptures were clear and perspicuous, and did not need an infallible interpreter to settle the dispute.
In one of his sermons Augustine gives this exegesis of the rock of Matthew 16:
“Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15–19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ. Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer”
(John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/12/augustines-unity-of-church-finally.html
Also, on the concept of purgatory, it appears Augustine speculated on the topic early on, but then later denied it. On the “eucharist necessary for salvation,” Augustine did not believe that participating in the Lord’s table granted salvation. He believed that salvation was given through faith in Jesus Christ which spiritually fulfilled the command to eat Christ’s flesh and blood. He did believe Christians were obligated to be baptized and to attend the Lord’s supper physically, but only because these are commands, not because he thought that the physical act of itself was effectual to salvation.
““But the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regenation: Wherefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again. From which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could possibly have been born again in his father. Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. And so much does Christ show us in this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be? He reminded His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent. Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from the serpent’s poisonous bite, unless we willfully wander from the rule of the Christian faith. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted.”
(On Forgiveness of Sin, and Baptism, 43:27
I see the misrepresentation of St Augustine continues. he believed as all Christians have for 2,000 years in baptismal regeneration. the reader as the above quote clearly shows. he was a CATHOLIC BISHOP, we should not be surprised he believed and taught the CATHOLIC FAITH.
It is not worth my time to refute the other misrepresentation, but the reader has been put on notice. deception abounds.
Saint Augustine, Doctor, (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honour, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermon to the People of Caesaria
the above is what St Augustine taught and believed.
And? But you know what you don't believe? TULIP.
the above is what St Augustine taught and believed.
Augustine believed the Church was made up of all believers, not centered on Rome.
**I and millions of other Catholics have studied the Bible for centuries.**
How old ARE you???
You've been at this for awhile, and you know the one thing you have never actually done? Contradict me on the topic of Augustine and his embrace of TULIP.
**The spirit of God in Jesus was born in the flesh by a woman.**
God has no beginning, so that statement is false, or just poorly worded.
Remember Peter, the one you claim as first pope?.....well this is his description:
“..Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God......This Jesus hath God raised up,......know assuredly, that GOD hath MADE that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:22,32,36
God made him both Lord and Christ, not Mary. God simply used her to make the tabernacle of flesh, that the already existing soul of Christ would dwell in.
“How God annointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him......Him God raised up.....it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and dead....”.
God annointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power, not Mary.
Neither Jesus, nor the apostles, EVER used the term ‘God the Son’, for they fully understood the Godhead. Jesus and the apostles always used the term ‘Son of God’. They taught that God was IN Christ, not that God was Christ. I trust their understanding, not the interpretations of men (and women).
if one reads the quote in #66, it refutes TULIP.
this is akin to Mormons baptizing Augustine into the Mormon Church, just as funny, just as sad.
**and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.**
So where is the second witness, to Mary spending 3 1/2 years in the wilderness, after Jesus ascended to heaven? I thought she was in the upper room when the Holy Ghost fell on Pentecost.
The nation of Israel, and Jerusalem, are addressed in the feminine quite a lot in the scriptures. Rev. 12 is simply another one of those cases.
**Without the Catholic Church, first safeguarding the Bible**
Kinda like the ravens, and then the widow in Zarephath, preserved Elijah. Also, the Egyptians preserved Abraham, and then Israel from drought, and then the child Jesus from Herod.
Are you capable of explaining in some logical way how it does?
.....unless we willfully wonder from the Christian Faith”
There goes the P in TULIP
My initial post puts it right back in
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth? And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
The nation of Israel, and Jerusalem, are addressed in the feminine quite a lot in the scriptures. Rev. 12 is simply another one of those cases.
Jerusalem does not fit well at all, having no child and rejecting the Messiah in his generation. Messiah was not born to, nor in, Jerusalem. Furthermore, it is clear from Joseph's dream that the twelve stars adorning the woman are the twelve tribes of Israel. Therefore the woman herself cannot be Israel or Jerusalem. Miriam, however, did give birth to the Messiah, and it is altogether fitting that she should wear a crown of twelve stars, the twelve tribes of Israel, and be clothed in honor with the Jewish Patriarchs (sun) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the Jewish Matriarchs (moon) Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel.
That’s a lot of interpretting right there.
Oh, Israel is the woman, all right. “He came”..(born)..”to his own, and his own received him not”.
**Joseph’s dream** has Joseph (not Judah) as the center of attention. Mary was of Judah, and therefore was one of the “twelve stars” of the nation of Israel.
After she died, was Mary in purgatory for 3 1/2 years befored the ‘assumption’? Or am I making a poor assumption?
What a tangled web we weave......
Thanks for replying though!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.