Posted on 01/17/2006 6:56:20 AM PST by HarleyD
The reason is the T.U.L.I.P. garden thinks Augustine is a Crypto-Calvinist
BTW-Both Dion and Kolo have state this to be "Western" thinking as opposed to "Eastern" thinking. From as much research as I have so far done on this I would say the Reformed view is neither western nor eastern thinking but it is historical theocratic thinking coming from the Old Testament Jews. They always held that God was fully in control of their lives (see 1 Sam 3, Esther 6, Dan 4 or Job 42 for examples on this.)
All other thinking whether they be "western" or "eastern" thinking is Greek thinking, anthropocentric in nature, stemming from Greek philosophy. Man's free will is "Greek" philosophy and has no root in the Jewish theocentric thought process. It should be noted John Cassian was heavily into Greek philosophy. There may be subtle differences between western and eastern Greek philosophy which I have not yet traced down; however it is essentially built from the same foundation of man's will. The Reformed view is not based upon Greek philosophy; western or eastern.
From the Greek anthropocentric philosophy original sin and man's depravity is a falacy. But from a historical Jewish theocentric view original sin and man's depravity is fully recognized. Thus man cannot be "evil" for the Greek view but man is "evil" from the historical Jewish view.
Augustine was no "Crypto-Calvinist". Rather, Augustine was a Proto-Calvinist -- that is, he correctly maintained the Orthodox Doctrine of the Christian Church long before it was utterly corrupted by the Papal Supremacists of Rome.
As I have previously said:
AT THE END OF THE DAY, it is the heretical Roman Catholic Papal Supremacists who are attempting a False Anti-Protestant Alliance with the Eastern Orthodox; Never mind the fact that important Patriarchal Confessions within Eastern Orthodoxy have acknowledged hard-core Augustinian Theology as being acceptable to the Orthodox, whereas NO Orthodox nor Protestant has ever accepted the foundationally-Romanistic Dogma of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.
Whatever our disagreements (and here, we Magisterial Protestants are willing to appeal to Orthodox Patristics and Orthodox Patriarchs and Orthodox Tradition in defense of our Theology), we Calvinists and Orthodox do at least agree upon the God-Ordained Organization of the Church: the Conciliar Form of Church Government.
Whether an Orthodox Council presided over by an Ecumenical Patriarch, or a Presbyterian Assembly presided over by a General Moderator, at least the Orthodox and the Calvinist Churches have the Biblical Modesty to Obey the Biblical Form of Government for the Church:
Against this Biblical Model is contrasted the Satanic Organization of the Church of Rome:
LUKE 4:5-7
And the Devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
Satan offered Jesus absolute, Totalitarian Power.
Jesus chose instead to establish a Conciliar Church.
Apparently, the Pope of Rome didn't like the deal, and decided instead that the whole "Absolute Power" thing sounded pretty cool.
Sorry, Rome.... while I may have my disagreements with the Eastern Orthodox as to their particular Theology (and not even so much disagreement at all, if Cyril Lukaris is my Ecumenical Patriarch), I think I'll tell the Papal Supremacists "Get thee behind me, Satan", and stick to the Conciliar Form of Church Government established by the Apostles and Jesus Christ.
Best, OP
If you are correct above, then why is St. Peter mentioned the most times in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles? Just for kicks?
Saint Paul wrote most of the New Testament, and he wasn't "just for kicks" either. So, what, shall we say that Paul was "Pope"?
No, of course not. While both Saints Peter and Paul (and all the Apostles, to arguably somewhat lesser extents) had critically important roles to play in the EXTENSION of the Biblical Church, the Biblically-Established Form of Church Government was Conciliar, not Papal.
We can see this clearly in Acts 15, where the Presiding Apostle James (NOT PETER) "pronounces judgment" (Acts 15:19) for the Whole Church, but only according to the CONCILIAR CONSENSUS of the Whole Church (Acts 15:22).
Given his Confession, I am willing to submit to Lukaris' definition of the Father-Processional Filioque, the Covenantal Baptism of Infants, the Mystical Eucharist, and the Veneration of Icons
I see you have made some progress on icons since we last shared thoughts...
I'm not sure I have "made progress" (grin).
I've said for a long time ago that if we Protestants can have velcro-board figurine-stories for our children's-outreach Vacation Bible Schools (for that matter, I loved my four-color "Bible Comics" as a kid), I can hardly begrudge the 10th Century Greeks their Icons for converting and educating illiterate pagan Russians.
I still disapprove of "worshipping" Icons (and "praying" to Deified Saints, for that matter -- beyond the Old Testament "don't talk to dead people" Command, it seems to me that it would be, well, rude to interrupt a Saint's heavenly worship: "Pardon me, would you STOP worshipping Jesus for a while and instead listen to my petty terrestrial concerns? Even though I know full well that Jesus can hear me perfectly well on His Own?" Whether it violates the Old Testament Command against Divination or nor, it still seems rude... at least to me).
BUT, while reserving my objections towards the Worship and Prayer of Icons, I decided long ago that it would be hypocritical of me not to admit their potential use for Education and Contemplation.
But, all that said, I pinged you mainly to say "Hi." :-)
It's nice to see you too.
I think you are making a unfair comparison. The line you quote from the Catechism shows that the Pope's pastoral responsibility is for all human souls. This is contrasted with the Devil's offer to the Lord to give Him power over all human temporal/political affairs, which is something the Devil couldn't give to Him, since He already has it (the Catholic Church believes in the Social Reign of Christ). The Pope's power isn't unlimited, since he is a steward for Christ, who is the real King. The Pope is responsibile for preserving and propagating the Apostolic teachings passed on over the centuries.
Now, to your comment Pyro:
The line you quote from the Catechism shows that the Pope's pastoral responsibility is for all human souls. This is contrasted with the Devil's offer to the Lord to give Him power over all human temporal/political affairs, which is something the Devil couldn't give to Him, since He already has it (the Catholic Church believes in the Social Reign of Christ). The Pope's power isn't unlimited, since he is a steward for Christ, who is the real King. The Pope is responsibile for preserving and propagating the Apostolic teachings passed on over the centuries.
This may well be the modern Catholic interpretation of the scope of the Pope's power (that he is the head of the Church instituted by Christ), but that certainly is not the historical claim of the Catholic church. Ever since Unam Sanctum, the Roman Church claimed unlimited temporal power for the Pope, even over the affairs of the emerging secular states.
I am gratified to see that Roman Catholicism no longer claims complete temporal authority for the Pope. Such claims are the fodder from which anti-Catholic demagogues like Jack Chick drew their sustenance.
Nonetheless, we are faced with a Pope who still claims to be the Shepherd responsible for all the souls of Christendom. This was neither Biblically based (Mt. 16:19 notwithstanding) nor the product of an ecumenical council. "First among equals" I could live with. "Universal power in the care of souls" I cannot.
OP correctly recongized that Papal Authority is the major point which still divides Protestants - magesterial Protestants, anyway - from Rome.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, Lukaris was condemned by the Pan Orthodox Council at Jerusalem in 1672 as was Calvinism generally.
"We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. ...
But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises, that each of the faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it is good or bad."
It's not just Mt. 16 but particularly Lk 22:32 and Jn 21 that apply here. Jesus seems pretty clear that he is giving pastoral care responsibilities to Peter in unique way that that at the same time does not exclude a whole lot of other pastoring going on.
"Feed my lambs" (= shepherd, pastor)and "confirm your brethren" and keys to the household (read the Isaiah passage to which Mt 16 refers and you'll see it's the position of chief steward of the royal household) far surpass any similar authority given to Paul (Damascus Road). No other apostle is given the equivalent of even one of these passages' attention.
To have all three of them directed at Peter would be truly striking, if it were not for the water under the dam that gives people presuppositions that make them unable to see how much these passages stand out.
And then, when you combine this with the striking way that Peter actually acts as head of the apostolic college throughout the book of Acts: if a Martian who knew nothing about the Protestant-Catholic-Orthodox disputes happened upon the Bible and read it analytically, the inordinate attention given to Peter would jump out immediately.
It all seems obvious to me now but there was a time when I read right past all these passages and did not notice how they together build up to a crushing case for Petrine primacy. (And yes, I know all the relativizng arguments, about Paul arguing with Peter to his face etc--fine--no one says one cannot disagree with Peter's successor--the debates are about under which circumstances and how. The relativizing arguments are compelling to those who don't accept Petrine primacy but my question is whether a Martian would see them as canceling out the truly striking coalescing of Mt 16, Lk 22, Jn 21 with all the narrative of Acts.)
But you and others are not Martians and neither am I. I was blind to these passages once and now they seem so obvious. I don't think that can be explained simply because I am now a Catholic because it was dropping of my blinders and opening of my mind to these passages that made me a Catholic rather than the other way around.
Does anyone know a good Martian who could give us an unbiased reading of this Scriptural data?
I would have to say that Roman Catholicism never did claim "complete temporal autority for the pope." Your source to the contrary, please? And please don't offer Unam Sanctam. It doesn't claim complete temporal authority. Such temporal authority as it does claim is by way of pastoral spiritual authority. We can debate its merits, but the first step is accurately to portray its claims. No pope ever claimed complete temporal authority. Claiming that popes did so is too close to Chickian propaganda for comfort.
And please, don't excuse Jack Chick by saying that his Catholic victims are to blame for his lies. Jack Chick (whoever he is or was) has no excuse whatsoever for his vile calumnies. Whatever sins and errors Catholics are guilty of, they do not excuse the dishonest excrement that Chick comics purvey. It's like saying that a rape victim is to blame for her being raped. And I mean that. Jack Chick comics are a form of intellectual/spiritual rape.
I'm sure you didn't mean to excuse him (or them or whoever produces this filth) and I don't mean to be offensive to you, whom I respect very much, here. I do however feel rather strongly about liars like the producers of Jack Chick comics. There are no words for my contempt for them.
As far as I've been able to tell, even Unam Sanctam does not claim unlimited temporal power for the Pope. Rather, it claims that the state's just powers are subservient to God through the church.
John Calvin didn't have a problem with that idea, either, as I recall. :-)
As do I. I have nothing but loathing and contempt for him too. I do not excuse him. Instead, what I meant by that was that claims like Unam Sanctum (if I understood it correctly; I'll read the rest your arguments later) lent plausibility to Jack Chick's ludicrous claims. That doesn't say that that man - and others like him - aren't misrepresenting the Catholic faith. He certainly is, and he will be called to account for it. It does mean, however, that there were things that intemperate Popes and others have said in the past may have helped lent credence.
It's like saying that a rape victim is to blame for her being raped. And I mean that. Jack Chick comics are a form of intellectual/spiritual rape.
Actually, that's a very good example. The blame for rape lies solely on the rapist, and nothing a young woman does mitigates that blame. But, only a naive girl would walk alone down a deserted street at night dressed in a mini-skirt and a revealing blouse. None of those things change the fact that the rapist is the one who bears sole responsibility for his actions - but a girl would be stupid to act so irresponsibly.
My argument is not that anything the Catholics say justifies the over-the-top distortions of Jack Chick. My argument is that, if I understand Unam Sanctum correctly (and I will re-read it tonite, and your arguments), the statements contained therein were dumb and lent credence to a man who should have none whatsoever.
Hey, I accept Petrine authority. That is the inescapable conclusion of Mt. 16:19. I just don't accept the argument that Peter's authority is transferred to the Bishop of Rome.
Well, you're in trouble now. ;-)
I just don't accept the argument that Peter's authority is transferred to the Bishop of Rome.
The reference to the keys is usually thought to be a reference to Isaiah 22:22, which refers to the office of "grand vizier" or chamberlain in the Davidic monarchy. That office certainly had a succession (it was not a one-time deal; there was always a grand vizier).
So, if you use the analogy, that would mean that the Petrine office has succession, too. If it's not in Rome, where is it?
THanks for the clarifications on this and on Jack Chick. It's Unam Sanctam (not Sanctum) and Campion is right about its more limited claims. (Also the context must be considered: the kings were trying to create state churches, failed at that point but succeeded 200 years later with horrendous results.) You may want to restudy the matter (as well as Petrine succession)--I think some of your conclusions are based on some faulty data. But I appreciate your irenic attitude and have tried to reciprocate.
"I would have to say that Roman Catholicism never did claim "complete temporal autority for the pope.""
The Dictatus Papae? :)
Little Brother you were just on my heart today and I asked if anyone knew how you were doing ! It is a REAL blessing to see you here :)
Interesting, I fully agree with you on the use of images, for education and comtemplation...and I'm a Presbyterian too, but, I acknowlege such a position is out of sinc with the Westminster standards...so how is it you are still OP???
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.