Can you explain these things you say?
Actually, my specific statement was that Augustine was essentially Protestant in his teaching as regards absolute predestination. He certainly believed (with both Luther and Calvin) that after Original Sin, Man is born totally depraved and that therefore all actions of Will by an unregenerate Man will always be untertaken in a state of rejection against God... whether out of active malice (human "evil"), or out of self-righteousness (human "good"), it's all filthy rags.
Now, since Augustine was a baptismal regenerationist (like his disciple Luther), he did not necessarily equate initial Salvation with final Salvation... rather, he believed that some who were "saved" from Original Sin by water baptism would later Fall Away -- specifically, those who were predestined to Fall Away (because in Augustine's view, as in Luther's, God definitely predestines both the Final Salvation of the Elect and the Final Damnation of the Reprobate before they are ever born... Augustine just supposed, with Luther, that Reprobates who would be "saved" by water baptism, not being Predestined to Final Salvation, would most certainly fall away).
Of course, you have to remember when reading Augustine: the Pelagian controversy was like a shock of cold water to him. He realized that most of his previous writings on "free will" had been grossly in error and had led many astray!! His writings against the Pelagians were thunderous affirmations of God's Total Sovereignty and in his last written work, On the Predestination of the Saints, the aging divine positively pleaded with his readers not to be deceived by the errors of his theological immaturity.
In short, I'll admit that Protestants only claim the theologically mature Augustine as an advocate of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. You can have the "young punk" Augustine. (grin)
CHAP. 7 [III.] -- AUGUSTIN CONFESSES THAT HE HAD FORMERLY BEEN IN ERROR CONCERNING THE GRACE OF GOD.
And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate. Among these is that which you have mentioned in your letters wherein is an exposition of certain propositions from the Epistle to the Romans.
Eventually, when I was retracting all my small works, and was committing that retractation to writing,of which task I had already completed two books before I had taken up your more lengthy letters, -- when in the first volume I had reached the retractation of this book, I then spoke thus: -- "Also discussing, I say, 'what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,"' I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: 'God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him, -- to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.' I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, ' A remnant are saved according to the election of grace.' Which assuredly is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given. And what I next subjoined: ' For the same apostle says, "The same God which worketh all in all;" but it was never said, God believeth all in all;' and then added, 'Therefore what we believe is our own, but what good thing we do is of Him who giveth the Holy Spirit to them that believe:' I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love, For faith is not alone but as it is written, 'Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.'
And what I said a little after, 'For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,'-- is true indeed; but by the same rule both are also God's, because God prepares the will; and both are ours too, because they are only brought about with our good wills.
And thus what I subsequently said also: 'Because we are not able to Will unless we are called; and when, after our calling, we would will, our willing is not sufficiently nor our running, unless God gives strength to us that run, and leads us whither He calls us;' and thereupon added: ' It is plain, therefore, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, that we do good works' -- this is absolutely most true. But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God's purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect.
Therefore what I said a little afterwards: ' For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works' -- I spoke most truly. But that even the merit itself of faith was God's gift, I neither thought of inquiring into, nor did I say. And in another place I say: 'For whom He has mercy upon, He makes to do good works, and whom He hardeneth He leaves to do evil works; but that mercy is bestowed upon the preceding merit of faith, and that hardening is applied to preceding iniquity.' And this indeed is true; but it should further have been asked, whether even the merit of faith does not come from God's mercy, -- that is, whether that mercy is manifested in man only because he is a believer, or whether it is also manifested that he may be a believer? For we read in the apostles words: ' I obtained mercy to be a believer.' He does not say, ' Because I was a believer.' Therefore although it is given to the believer, yet it has been given also that he may be a believer.
Therefore also, in another place in the same book I most truly said: ' Because, if it is of God's mercy, and not of works, that we are even called that we may believe and it is granted to us who believe to do good works, that mercy must not be grudged to the heathen;'--although I there discoursed less carefully about that calling which is given according to God's purpose."
CHAP. 8 [IV.] -- WHAT AUGUSTIN WROTE TO SIMPLICIANUS, THE SUCCESSOR OF AMBROSE, BISHOP OF MILAN.
Of this first of those two books, I first spoke in the second book of the Retractations; and what I said is as follows: "Of the books, I say, on which, as a bishop, I have laboured, the first two are addressed to Simplicianus, president of the Church of Milan, who succeeded the most blessed Ambrose,concerning divers questions, two of which I gathered into the first book from the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. The former of them is about what is written: ' What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? By no means;' as far as the passage where he says, ' Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' And therein I have expounded those words of the apostle: The law is spiritual; but I am carnal,' and others in which the flesh is declared to be in conflict against the Spirit in such a way as if a man were there described as still under law, and not yet established under grace. For, long afterwards, I perceived that those words might even be (and probably were) the utterance of a spiritual man. The latter question in this book is gathered from that passage where the apostle says, ' And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one act of intercourse, even by our father Isaac,' as far as that place where he says, ' Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should be as Sodoma, and should have been like unto Gomorrah.' In the solution of this question I laboured indeed on behalf of the free choice of the human will, but God's grace overcame, and I could only reach that point where the apostle is perceived to have said with the most evident truth, ' For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou hast not received? Now, if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou receivedst it not?' And this the martyr Cyprian was also desirous of setting forth when he compressed the whole of it in that title: 'That we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.' "
This is why I previously said that it was chiefly by this apostolic testimony that I myself had been convinced, when I thought otherwise concerning this matter; and this God revealed to me as I sought to solve this question when I was writing, as I said, to the Bishop Simplicianus. This testimony, therefore, of the apostle, when for the sake of repressing man's conceit he said, "For what hast thou which thou hast not received?" does not allow any believer to say, I have faith which I received not. All the arrogance of this answer is absolutely repressed by these apostolic words. Moreover, it cannot even be said, "Although I have not a perfected faith, yet I have its beginning, whereby I first of all believed in Christ" Because here also answered: "But what hast thou that thou hast not received? Now, if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou receivedst it, not?"
How did you miss all this Calvinist stuff?
I suppose this post will be missed too, like scripture I quote to other Calvinists here, and Luther's morals... Your roots/beliefs are based on a man that preached sin, and one that didn't want to be held accountable...
Actually, they're based on the Bible. Since neither Luther nor Calvin are my "pope", I am not married to any theological errors which they have made. I have the freedom to return always to Scripture Alone, and not be bound by the traditions of men.
And so, getting back to the subject of the Thread:
So... if as Jesus hung on the Cross, John had positioned himself under the arms of the cross-bar and begun suckling and swallowing the dripping human blood as it fell; and if John had asked the soldiers for a piece of the muscle tissue stripped from Jesus' back, chewed up the torn human muscle and swallowed it down...
Question:
Which is it?
From my #211 (unanswered)