Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Although I've searched for this passage and can't find it. Off hand, if he did state it, I would say your misinterpreting his words. Here is some of Augustine's views on foreknowledge which can be found in A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints
Further, between grace and predestination there is only this difference, that predestination is the preparation for grace, while grace is the donation itself. When, therefore, the apostle says," Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works," [Eph. 2.9,10.] it is grace; but what follows—"which God hath prepared that we should walk in them"—is predestination, which cannot exist without foreknowledge, although foreknowledge may exist without predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things which He was about to do, whence it was said, "He made those things that shall be." [Isa. 46.11.]
And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;" when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him.
"Therefore," says the [sic:heretic] Pelagian, "He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such. Therefore He elected them," says he, "before they existed, predestinating them to be children whom He foreknew to be holy and immaculate.
For they think that "having received God's commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case," they say, "He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world." Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son.
A careful reading of Augustine shows this isn't the case. This is the main beef of the Orthodox with Augustine; original sin. As Augustine stated:
I have found that your postings do just that. They ignore free will in the effort to hold up God's Sovereignty.
Nonsense. You'll find that I do not ignore man's free will. I place it square where it ought to be; behind God's sovereign will.
You'll find I'm in complete agreement with Augustine's writing on Grace and Free Will. It is you who are taking snippets of the first part and ignoring that last part. You certainly would not agree with Augustine's statement:
The Orthodox gets it; you don't.
As usual, you cite me a number of issues that I and Catholicism already believe, trying to create some sort of false dichotomy.
I post my sources. You tell me what books you have read.
"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." [Mark 2:17]
Fallen angels are dead. They cannot be called to repentance.
They do?
"They probably read Ephesians for themselves and finally listened to the Holy Spirit rather than the error of 1500 years."
They'd have done better to read Ephesians and +John Chrysostomos' Homily IV on Ephesians.
Tell me, bd, was the Holy Spirit "doing a new thing" with the Reformers, like the Episcopalian revisionists claim He is doing now with their theology?
"Wrong! I see we are back to the old false monolithic doctrine claim."
But qua, the consensus patrum is "monolithic", certainly far "more monolithic" than the fractured theology of Protestantism. As an Orthodox Christian, I believe in and worship our Triune God the same way my ancestors dfor at least the past 1800 years and I can profess that the very existence and preservation of the consensus patrum by The Church to this day is an indication that it is the work of the Holy Spirit and a fulfillment of Christ's promise to His Church, to the exclusion of other strange doctrines. Is it your position that Calvinism, as opposed to the multitude of other Protestant ways of looking at and speaking about God, has that pedigree to the exclusion of others?
"What part of a return to Augustianism is so hard to understand?"
A return to any part of Augustinianism which is not within the consensus patrum. As Harley will tell you, we Orthodox understand Blessed Augustine, or believe we do, in relevant part the same way you Calvinists do and we reject that as being far outside the consensus patrum. Our Latin brethren insist that both the Reformers and the Orthodox are misinterpreting +Augustine. They tell us that what +Augustine wrote on this subject, taken in the context of what he was dealing with and in light of his other works, can be read as consistent with the other Fathers. That may be true. certainly its not something which I had thought much about before a couple of years ago. That said, no Father was infallible and that fallibility doesn't reduce their value. In great measure, qua, to those of us in The Church, Latin or Eastern, your proof texting of +Augustine to create a "patristic" basis for Reformation theology is simply 16th century Western European revolutionary innovation.
"Maybe Rome needed to be "Reformed" and those men chosen by God to fight corruption were reluctant to sever ties but the unrepentant See left them no option."
Now there I can agree with you. The Latins might even agree with you. But to paraphrase Pat. Jeremias II, they didn't need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
"Lutherianism lost the courage of its convictions early on."
Oh, I don't know. They're still around and they're neither Orthodox nor Latin.
"The Orthodox get it [that man is totally corrupt]
They do?"
I think he means we understand what they are saying and that +Augustine can be read to say that...but we reject it.
Would you then have Jesus as breaking the commandment to honor His mother? By the way, "honor", in Hebrew, refers to "glorify". Perhaps you are missing the point of what is happening at the Wedding Feast at Cana? As to Mat 12, WHO was the FIRST to follow the Word of God in the New Testament? Can Mary be excluded from Christ's proclamation? Who was considered BLESSED for her belief by Elizabeth?
According to your tradition, if Mary was sinless, did she need a savior? If so, for what purpose?
Yes, she needed a savior to prevent her from sinning in the first place. Do you think she had anything to do with herself being born without original sin? If I prevent you from falling into a hidden pit, haven't I saved you by preventing you from falling?
Regards
"Tell me, bd, was the Holy Spirit "doing a new thing" with the Reformers, like the Episcopalian revisionists claim He is doing now with their theology?"
No, I think the "new thing" was more like what happened with Galileo.
Are you saying that St. Augustine had the concept that man's will was totally corrupt and could never choose the good, even if merely "aided" by God after his regeneration? That, quite frankly, is a denial of human free will, no matter what definition you want to choose to call it. St. Augustine, I have found, does not often distinguish his various definitions of "free will". At times, he means "the ability to choose between several options" and at other times, it means "to not be impeded". Are you saying that, in either case, the Saint is telling us that in a given situation, man CANNOT choose the good? In either case, he would not call this free will, would he?
Please note the human will is changed from "bad to good". This is what I harp on with Romans 6 where we were slaves to sin, now we're slaves to righteousness. This is consistent with the Reformed position.
I would agree that our general disposition is gradually changed from "normally bad" to "normally good" as a result of the Spirit's indwelling - WE change! We are a new creation. But as Paul notes in the following Chapter 7, even HE CONTINUES to fight the flesh. The old man DOES NOT DIE! We continue to fight it. We will continue to live within the shadows of temptation for the remainder of our lives. But we have an Advocate we can turn to when we sin, as John tells us - and we do sin! Again, as John tells us. Thus, as common experience points out, we STILL continue to sin, but we have a greater propensity to ask forgiveness, to sin less often, and to purify oneself by crucifying one's flesh (Galatians).
You'll find that I do not ignore man's free will. I place it square where it ought to be; behind God's sovereign will.
I respectfully disagree. You assign it no task whatsoever during a particular moral situation. God's Sovereignty completely takes over and overshadows that person to make a good or evil choice. I find no use for free will in such a situation. St. Augustine clearly disagrees with this concept. He tells us that God's foreknowledge does NOT make man's choice moot or non-existent. I agree that God's sovereignty is more important in the big picture, but God DID give man free will for a purpose - not so God could overrule it at every moral decision... Free will is one of God's greatest gifts to man, according to St. Augustine. You would have God destroy His own wonderful gifts.
from St. Augustine: I think, sufficiently clear that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoever He wills, whether to good deeds according to His mercy, or to evil after their own deserts; His own judgment being sometimes manifest, sometimes secret, but always righteous.
I don't disagree with that, Harley! Again, one must keep BOTH concepts clearly in view. God works in the hearts of men, but it does NOT follow that He overpowers man's will so that man HAS no free will. I would be careful on the last part of St. Augustine's quote above - as you appear to be saying that God is the author of man's evil desires - while you have earlier stated that God is not the author of sin...
I wrote: "This, of course, destroys the Reformation idea that man is TOTALLY corrupt. St. Augustine NEVER says that, as far as I can tell."
To me, totally corrupt means that one cannot do good, even with God's help. Thus, IF a man does any good, it is ENTIRELY God doing EVERYTHING - thus, man has no merit to be judged worthy or not. The whole point of judgment is a farce, in the eyes of those who follow "man is totally corrupt". St. Augustine himself says that God does not command man to do anything that HE CANNOT DO! He goes on to say that God is NOT just if man, even AIDED, cannot do good.
You would have God condemn a person because he cannot pick up 20,000 pounds without any mechanical or physical help! This is your just God?
No, I don't think the Orthodox have THAT concept of a just God who rewards and punishes man for HIS own actions
Regards
Kolokotronis wrote : Now there I can agree with you. The Latins might even agree with you. But to paraphrase Pat. Jeremias II, they didn't need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Yes, the Church is ALWAYS in need of Reform. But a quick reading of say, the beginning of 1 Corinthians, should disillusion oneself that "reform" = "creating another church with different beliefs". There is one faith, not many. By leaving the apostolic church, the reformers' hand was played - set THEMSELVES up as authority over and against the Church. This shouldn't be surprising, given that this sin of pride goes all the way back to Adam.
"Throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is an apt analogy of what the "reformers" did.
Regards
So what exactly do you think happened to poor old Galileo, as it turned out, was wrong on some issues? Because a scientist makes bold, unsubstantiated claims, the whole world is supposed to change its total views on astronomy AND the interpretation of Scriptures?
Regards
"Would you then have Jesus as breaking the commandment to honor His mother?"
He wasn't, He was about His Father's business according to His Father's timing, not His earthly mother's, just like He was as a little boy in the temple. Honor means to hold in high esteem. Glorify belongs to God.
"WHO was the FIRST to follow the Word of God in the New Testament?"
That would be Anna and Simeon I suppose. They were aged and waiting for the promised Messiah.
"Do you think she had anything to do with herself being born without original sin?"
Where is it written in scripture that she was born without original sin? You have a unique interpretation of the work of Jesus, the Savior. He came to pay the penalty for our sin, the second Adam, that is why He is the Savior. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, to keep us from sin.
For 500 years before Christ, Israel read the prophecies of Isaiah concerning the "Suffering Savior" wrong and ultimately put to death the Messiah in their error. Thank God after 1500 years He again spoke the truth to Luther and Calvin and the reformers who followed.
It sounds like you are saying that Jesus Christ was NOT the culmination of God's Revelation to mankind and that Martin Luther and Jean Calvin were sent to more fully reveal God's will to man... It sounds so .... Muslim. Well, politically and religiously, they were similar. Hmm. Perhaps there is more to this Luther/Calvin - Mohemmed comparison.
Regards
"And out of them shall proceed thanksgiving and the voice of them that make merry: and I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them, and they shall not be small." Jer 30:19.
"All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory." Is 60:7
Note WHO is glorifying WHOM... God can CHOOSE to glorify whom He will. I would say that His mother would be a prime target for His glorifying.
That would be Anna and Simeon I suppose. They were aged and waiting for the promised Messiah.
They don't appear in the Scriptures until AFTER Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary. Go to Luke Chapter One.
Where is it written in scripture that she was born without original sin?
Where is it written that everything that Christians are to do and believe is written in Scriptures?
You have a unique interpretation of the work of Jesus, the Savior.
How so?
He came to pay the penalty for our sin, the second Adam, that is why He is the Savior. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, to keep us from sin.
God is one. Where Jesus is, there is the Spirit and the Father. They do not work separately - unless you believe in three gods... When man "assigns" a particular work to one of the Persons of the Trinity, this does not preclude the Other Two's participation. The Blessed Trinity is active TOGETHER in the sanctification of man.
Regards
"It sounds like you are saying that Jesus Christ was NOT the culmination of God's Revelation to mankind and that Martin Luther and Jean Calvin were sent to more fully reveal God's will to man..."
No, actually Jesus was God's full revelation to man but like what happened to Israel, the simple revelation of salvation in Jesus was so obscured by man's institutional interpolations and accretions over the centuries that when the veil was once again removed and the simple message of "the just shall live by faith" was again seen and heard, just like at Pentecost, the wild fire of the Holy Spirit freed man from the shackles of second hand ignorance and opened the scriptures to the most humble cobbler to read and understand by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The rest is His story.
The terrible condition of man's heart will never be recognized by people who assess it only in relation to other men. Romans 14:23 makes plain that depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily, and only secondarily in relation to man. Unless we start here we will never grasp the totality of our natural depravity.
The Bible teaches the total depravity of the human race. Total depravity means radical corruption. We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being.
He didn't rescue the Canaanites, the Egyptian, or the Pharisees. He calls out a people of His own choosing based upon His divine, if not mysterious, plan. This is the way it has always been.
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.