Posted on 01/05/2002 11:55:52 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Augustine was a double predestinarian. All of the vain philosophizing in the world can never change that.
Read Augustine's exposition of Matthew 11, the passage concerning Bethsaida and Chorazim. This is the passage which caused Augustine to realize that absolute predestination is absolutely true. And you will never understand the issues of mechanism until you grasp that.
So, you are still over your head in this discussion.
Um, no, I actually read what he writes. I also read with an open mind. The error of Luther and Calvin, and, I think, you, is that you read to find "justification" (no pun intended) for beliefs you already hold.
You are once again completely in error about St. Augustine on the issue of predestination. Augustine, like Thomas after him, endorses the notion of a positive predestination -- that God predestines certain people to glory and gives them the grace necessary to secure that His decision will come to pass. But he does not endorse the idea of predestination to damnation precisely because this twisted idea contradicts the Justice and Holiness of God, the freedom of man, and the universality of the Divine Desire for salvation.
As St. Augustine teaches in his Contra Jul. III 18, 35: "God is good, God is just. He can save a person without good works, because He is good; but He cannot condemn anyone without evil works, because He is just."
Then read his exposition of Matthew 11. It's pretty cool.
I also read with an open mind.
No, it is impossible for RCs to seriously entertain the Protestant position on anything. This is in the very nature of RCism. Rome's claims of spiritual authority bind your mind and thereby blind your understanding of several things which are pretty important in the Bible.
This is why you embrace the RC doctrines of the "priesthood" and "sainthood." This is also why you incessantly violate the obvious spirit of 1 Timothy 2:5.
And this is why your theology inserts the word "alone" in Romans 3:20--when it ain't there.
The error of Luther and Calvin, and, I think, you, is that you read to find "justification" (no pun intended) for beliefs you already hold.
Actually, I rarely bother to read Luther or Calvin or Augustine. I am more interested in the Bible itself--and I always have been since I was born of the Spirit of God over 25 years ago. But I do know some of the crucial positions which these three men held--and I have noticed to my horror that no RC theologian since the time of the Reformation has ever grappled honestly with Luther or Calvin or even Augustine.
Bouyer is a good example of this travesty of theology.
And my FReeper friend attagirl is a good example of a FReeper RC who is determined to go off on the tangent of saying we must have practical godliness. (I say to her, So what? She is missing the real point which I have repeatedly stipulated. God's elect will be holy in visibly obvious ways. Calvin says that very clearly. But most people are not elect. Most people are reprobate. Most people do think that practical godliness is an antecedent necessity in justification. But Paul says in Romans 3 and 4 that it is not an antecedent necessity. On the contrary, he clearly teaches that it is a consequential necessity [Philippians 2:12-13]. It is a certain and visible result of the sanctification which true faith produces in the truly justified.)
You are once again completely in error about St. Augustine on the issue of predestination.
Nope. Augustine taught an absolute predestination. He taught the predestination of the elect to heaven and the predestination of the non-elect to hell.
Read Matthew 11 in the way Augustine read it. It is very interesting stuff!
Augustine, like Thomas after him, endorses the notion of a positive predestination -- that God predestines certain people to glory and gives them the grace necessary to secure that His decision will come to pass.
Fine. Your statement, although presenting only half the truth of what Augustine taught--is correct as stated, including the reference to the Scholastic theologians. (Calvin embarrassed the RCs pretty badly, by the way, by repeatedly quoting Augustine and the Scholastic theologians against Rome's 16th Century position. The RCs thought they knew Augustine, but Calvin knew Augustine a lot better than they did. So did Luther, an Augustinian monk.)
But he does not endorse the idea of predestination to damnation precisely because this twisted idea contradicts the Justice and Holiness of God, the freedom of man, and the universality of the Divine Desire for salvation.
This is where you have failed to see/admit what Augustine really taught about reprobation. You have presented a nice-sounding but ultimately specious argument--because there are other issues in the picture. Augustine noticed these other issues of justice; you have not.
Thus, you are fashioning an argument for Augustine as if he surely thought about the issues in the way you are thinking about them. You need to re-read Augustine. With an open mind this time [grin].
In other words, you need to quit reading your theology into Augustine. It's a lot deeper than you have realized. Augustine did not make the error you have made above.
As St. Augustine teaches in his Contra Jul. III 18, 35: "God is good, God is just. He can save a person without good works, because He is good; but He cannot condemn anyone without evil works, because He is just."
This does not establish your case. It is actually the mainstream Calvinist position. Think again about what we are discussing. And re-read Augustine.
***
I'm afraid that I am too busy to continue this discussion. (I owe attagirl a discussion of John 3:5, and I am too busy to write even that post right now.) However, I am sure OrthodoxPresbyterian will be pleased to pick up the thread of our discussion.
You need to do the same thing with the word of God..you may be amazed to learn you have been deceived
This thread does still seem pretty dead to me. That's why I am not posting. I'm suprised you didn't trot out the oldie but goodie "talibornagain".
Aside: I guess that when we raise a good objection about the RC, we have no right to express that opinion without all the whiny RC complaining about how hateful we are and having that post removed.
It is not my intent to offend you, but as a Protestant convert to Catholicism, I will simply say that this statement is, at best, utter rubbish.
This is why you embrace the RC doctrines of the "priesthood" and "sainthood." This is also why you incessantly violate the obvious spirit of 1 Timothy 2:5.
Actually, we endorse the notion of "priesthood" because man, by instinct, desires to offer sacrifice to God, and God is pleased to accept it. We endorse the notion of "sainthood" because there are, in fact, some people who live lives demonstrating that they truly are God's "best friends," and provide heroic example to the rest of us.
As for the Timothy 2:5 reference, I will direct your attention to an earlier post on this thread explaining why that verse is not in opposition to Catholic truth. I think that I posted that explanation on one of the days when everyone else thought you were banned. Essentially, Paul there uses the term mestizos, a highly specific technical term referring to an individual mediating a dispute between two parties at enmity, where the mediator is equally the friend of each party. As a result, it does not exclude the existence of lesser mediators, since only Christ is equally the friend of both God and man.
I am more interested in the Bible itself--and I always have been since I was born of the Spirit of God over 25 years ago.
Interesting. Bible reading is definitely a good way to use our time. I have a great Confraternity version which breaks up the New Testament into daily readings so that you cover the whole New Testament in a year. Good stuff.
But I do know some of the crucial positions which these three men held--and I have noticed to my horror that no RC theologian since the time of the Reformation has ever grappled honestly with Luther or Calvin or even Augustine.
Then you simply haven't looked hard enough. Right off the top of my head, I can refer you to Cardinal Palazzini's classic, Sin.
And this is why your theology inserts the word "alone" in Romans 3:20--when it ain't there.
I will be happy to discuss this issue with you, but you'll need to be more specific with your objection. The "Law" thing is a very involved topic.
Nope. Augustine taught an absolute predestination. He taught the predestination of the elect to heaven and the predestination of the non-elect to hell.
Wrong. Here, in brief, is the position of Augustinian (and Catholic position on the matter. The doctrine is presented in two theses: (1) That God's eternal choice of the elect is very real, completely gratuitous, and constitutes the greatest of graces; and (2) that God's decree does not destroy the Divine Will for the salvation of all, which, anyway, is not realized unless the individual, in the exercise of his liberty, accepts it -- the elect therefore have the power in their hands to "fall" and the non-elect have the power in their hands to "rise up."
Thesis 1: God has created the world and dispensed graces in such a way that He knows who will be saved. In that sense and in that sense only, is there a "list" of the saved. The graces necessary for salvation are given completely gratuitously. Why God gives this or that grace to one person and not to another Augustine concludes is a great divine mystery (See De Spiritu and littera , 35, no. 60.)
Thesis 2: Notwithstanding Thesis 1, God desires all men to be saved. To this end, God, from the foundation of the world, excluded any series of events in any individual's life that would deprive him of his liberty -- i.e., there are no such situations where an individual is powerless against sin, therefore St. Augustine, 11 centuries ahead of time, abjures the Calvinist error.
In his "Retractions" (and other works), Augustine teaches that "all men can be saved if they want to be." In his Commentary on Psalm 57, he states "Who are the elect? - You if you want to be." And in his commentary on Psalm 120, he writes, "it is up to you to be elect."
Resolution of the Theses: the theses are resolved, according to Augustine, by the fact that God knows and has always known who will respond to grace and in what way. Therefore, if the "list" does not change, it is not because the individual cannotdecide for life against death, it is only because God knew from eternity that the individual would not want to to do so.
Read Matthew 11 in the way Augustine read it. It is very interesting stuff!
Both in De Don. Pers., 10, and in De Cons Evan., ii.32, St. Augustine is talking about positive predestination -- though in a slightly different sense. From Our Lord's words, we know that certain people are given graces to help them gain salvation. But Our Lord knows when we will not respond to His grace, and, as a result, will bear greater guilt before Him. In His mercy, He avoids this problem by sometimes withholding the grace. The withholding of the grace is not to assure the person's damnation -- on the contrary, it is to minimize his guilt.
Calvin embarrassed the RCs pretty badly, by the way, by repeatedly quoting Augustine and the Scholastic theologians against Rome's 16th Century position.
When you have a moment, please provide a single example of Calvin performing this feat. Having more-or-less read the entirety of the Institutes, having seen the man's reasoning grinding away at attempting to prove his pre-determined conclusions, and having slugged through his unspeakably overwrought writing style, I'll just say that I'm a little skeptical.
This does not establish your case. It is actually the mainstream Calvinist position.
Let's define "mainstream Calvinist position." If you mean by that "the teaching of John Calvin," then you, of course, couldn't be more wrong. If you mean by that "what the average Joe Calvinist today believes," then you may or may not be wrong.
Think again about what we are discussing.
Oh, okay.
I'm afraid that I am too busy to continue this discussion.
I understand completely.
Is it just me -- or does everyone else hear a buzzing sound?
I continue to look forward to the day when you post a relevant comment of any kind whatsoever.
The Catholic Church brought to mankind something they said was "lost" and now found via the Catholic Church. But accroding to history...Christianity was never lost, persecuted yes, murdered yes, hunted by Catholic henchmen...yes again, but never did the doctrine of Jesus Christ leave the earth...nothing was lost.
Jesus said upon this rock I will build my church and hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus built it, Christians maintained it, and despite the Catholic Churches attempt to destroy it through false doctrine and perversion....we're still here !
How can a Church give to man, something he never lost ?
He's rather too presumptuous for my tastes. You're asking me to cast my exigetical pearls before someone who is acting swinish. My temptation is simply to shake my sandals and move on. (My time is valuable too)
I am content to answer his arguments as you request, but only if he agress to meet me in a spirit of charity.
That does not mean that I desire for him to emasculate his own arguments -- that is what RC's typically expect of Protestants; to forego any truly forthright condemnation of Roman error on grounds that such forthrightness is "Catholic-bashing". Protestants have little patience for such ecumenical pap; I would gladly see "squire" present his arguments as strongly and adamantly as he is able. After all, I would do the same.
But if he intends to be presumptuous and snide, I am not going to waste my time.
I will "tease" Squire with this: if you meet me in exigetical battle, your arguments will be crushed. You will see them taken apart and cast down before your eyes. Of this, I have not even an inkling of doubt.
But you won't even get the chance, unless you ditch the swinish attitude and meet me in good faith. If you can best my arguments, fine; if I can best your arguments, deal with it.
But I'll not throw pearls into the slop.
Don't bother with answering "squire" yourself; I am eager to see the continuation of your Baptism discussion with "attagirl". As a favor to me, concentrate on that, if you have the time.
If squire wants a debate, then dependent upon his willingness to behave charitably (as defined above), I will give him one.
Deals with the Tares of the Professing Church versus the Wheat of the Confessing Church.
Deals with it hard. You'd love it.
I call first dibs on posting it.
I think the most charitable interpretation of this post is to simply assume that it was written in turns by two or more different people.
I will "tease" Squire with this: if you meet me in exigetical battle, your arguments will be crushed. You will see them taken apart and cast down before your eyes. Of this, I have not even an inkling of doubt.
If true, one might think that you'd have no need for preening protestations.
I am always happy to engage in doctrinal discussions with Protestants, as long as they can defend their beliefs in a substantive manner. Please be advised that I am currently on a time-consuming medical school rotation with frequent overnight call, and it is not always possible for me to daily access FR. But I will respond to any of your posts when I am able.
I now propose the first topic of discussion. Please provide for me a scriptural basis for the Lollard (and later Protestant) teaching of sola Scriptura. Since the Chosen People, the Jews, believe that God gave them both written Scripture (aka the Torah) and an oral Tradition (later recorded in the Talmud), the Protestants must assume that God changed the revelational model. Please cite for me the Scripture where God stated that Scripture alone is the source of Divine Revelation.
As I stated above, it's a deal -- assuming that you can debate from the grandstands. And the soapbox.
As you wish. (It's immaterial to me).
I will "tease" Squire with this: if you meet me in exigetical battle, your arguments will be crushed. You will see them taken apart and cast down before your eyes. Of this, I have not even an inkling of doubt. ~~ If true, one might think that you'd have no need for preening protestations.
No preening necessary.
If I wanted to "preen", I'd have to "preen" myself before a debate with Matatics. He is an impressive Roman apologist. I don't mind saying I would enter a debate with Matatics knowing full well I was over-matched. (This is not to say that any Protestant apologist would be overmatched, just that I would be. I admit this).
In your case, however, I am not "preening", merely confident. You are not my match, so I should be pleasantly surprised to lose the engagement.
For you to call that "preening", is pathetic. Ditch the presumptuous attitude, squire.
I am always happy to engage in doctrinal discussions with Protestants, as long as they can defend their beliefs in a substantive manner. Please be advised that I am currently on a time-consuming medical school rotation with frequent overnight call, and it is not always possible for me to daily access FR. But I will respond to any of your posts when I am able. I now propose the first topic of discussion. Please provide for me a scriptural basis for the Lollard (and later Protestant) teaching of sola Scriptura. Since the Chosen People, the Jews, believe that God gave them both written Scripture (aka the Torah) and an oral Tradition (later recorded in the Talmud), the Protestants must assume that God changed the revelational model. Please cite for me the Scripture where God stated that Scripture alone is the source of Divine Revelation.
Denied. I have no interest in debating the typical Roman misconceptions about Protestant appreciation for sola scriptura. You folks don't even understand our position thereupon, so it's not worth my time.
Instead, we will return to the Patristics (surely you don't mind debating Patristics, do you?)
The discussion concerns the Patristic authority of Augustine. That is where your debate with "the_doc" was centered, I shall take it up.
We will meet on that ground, for now.... if you wish.
Question of the evening -- which immature psychological defense mechanism is at work? Fantasy or Denial?
You folks don't even understand our position thereupon, so it's not worth my time.
Whatever you say. But maybe it's worth your time to explain it to us (since we're not all mind-readers and since Protestants have so many different beliefs about the same thing). Then we'll discuss it.
That is where your debate with "the_doc" was centered, I shall take it up. We will meet on that ground, for now.... if you wish.
You da boss. My posts on Augustine have had both citations and direct quotations. I will assume that your posts as well will have both citations and quotations, since they facilitate discussion.
Confidence.
If you don't know it, don't knock it.
Whatever you say. But maybe it's worth your time to explain it to us (since we're not all mind-readers and since Protestants have so many different beliefs about the same thing). Then we'll discuss it.
It is "worth it" .. but another time.
Calvin's Institutes are constantly buttressed with observations from the patristics.
There's reason for this. Protestants do not disrespect the patristic scholarship. RC's have just been taught to think that we do.
They're wrong, of course.
But that's for another day.
Re: Augustine -- That is where your debate with "the_doc" was centered, I shall take it up. We will meet on that ground, for now.... if you wish. ~~ You da boss. My posts on Augustine have had both citations and direct quotations. I will assume that your posts as well will have both citations and quotations, since they facilitate discussion.
Absolutely. I happily agree. More tomorrow, then, God willing.
Can I use this one sometime?
It is "worth it" .. but another time.
OK, but don't forget.
Calvin's Institutes are constantly buttressed with observations from the patristics.
Yes, yes, and also constantly buttressed by Scriptural quotations ripped from their proper contexts.
Protestants do not disrespect the patristic scholarship. RC's have just been taught to think that we do.
Yet another fairy tale.
Absolutely. I happily agree. More tomorrow, then, God willing.
Why not right now?
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.