Posted on 08/23/2006 9:57:12 AM PDT by Rampolla
3. AUGUSTINE replied: What amazing folly, to disbelieve what Matthew records of Christ, while you believe Manichaeus! If Matthew is not to be believed because he was not present when Christ said, "I came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill," was Manichaeus present, was he even born, when Christ appeared among men? According, then, to your rule, you should not believe anything that Manichaeus says of Christ. On the other hand, we refuse to believe what Manichaeus says of Christ; not because he was not present as a witness of Christ's words and actions, but because he contradicts Christ's disciples, and the Gospel which rests on their authority. The apostle, speaking in in he Holy Spirit, tells us that such teachers would arise. With reference to such, he says to believers: "If any man preaches to you another gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed." If no one can say what is true of Christ unless he has himself seen and heard Him, no one now can be trusted. But if believers can now say what is true of Christ because the truth has been handed down in word or writing by those who saw and heard, why might not Matthew have heard the truth from his fellow-disciple John, if John was present and he himself was not, as from the writings of John both we who are born so long after and those who shall be born after us can learn the truth about Christ? In this way, the Gospels of Luke and Mark, who were companions of the disciples, as well as the Gospel of Matthew, have the same authority as that of John. Besides, the Lord Himself might have told Matthew what those called before him had already been witnesses of. Your idea is, that John should have recorded this saying of the Lord, as he was present on the occasion. As if it might not happen that, since it was impossible to write all that be heard from the Lord, he set himself to write some, omitting this among others. Does he not say at the close of his Gospel: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written"? This proves that he omitted many things intentionally, But if you choose John as an authority regarding the law and the prophets, I ask you only to believe his testimony to them. It is John who writes that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ. It is in his Gospel we find the text l already treated of: "If ye believed Moses, ye would also believe me; for he wrote of me." Your evasions are met on every side. You ought to say plainly that you do not believe the gospel of Christ. For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel.
I don't believe. I used to, but now I'm a Jew.
Uh oh!
I do believe....in paragraphs
Here is the context of St. Augustine's remarks: "You ought to say plainly that you do not believe the gospel of Christ. For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel."
No, this is the context of the statement: "But if believers can now say what is true of Christ because the truth has been handed down in word or writing by those who saw and heard, why might not Matthew have heard the truth from his fellow-disciple John, if John was present and he himself was not, as from the writings of John both we who are born so long after and those who shall be born after us can learn the truth about Christ? In this way, the Gospels of Luke and Mark, who were companions of the disciples, as well as the Gospel of Matthew, have the same authority as that of John. Besides, the Lord Himself might have told Matthew what those called before him had already been witnesses of."
It is the scriptures Augustine is pointing not the unwritten tradition that you are alluding to.
Yes, you're right about the paragraphs.
" The bottom line it's not everyone picking and choosing for themselves inventing doctrine rather than receiving it via apostolic authority."
But that is exactly what Augustine did in his arguments with the Manichaeans and Donatists. None of the doctrines used against them had been articulated until Augustine interpreted them from the scriptures, just as believers can today by the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
On the contrary Augustine wasn't picking and choosing. He accepts all of the Gospels. He's engaging in apologetic argument quoting Paul and sections of Scripture. Secondly as a bishop, Augustine is a successor to the Apostles and forms part of the teaching-authority of the Church. Thirdly Augustine was a theologian and sought to think with and in the Faith of the Church which he accepts in its entirety. Marcion would be an example of picking and choosing according to his own head. Hence he rejected the O.T. and rejected most of the N.T. except for Luke and Paul.
What else did St. Augustine have to say? About Church authority? About the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? About the Virgin Mary? Non-Catholics can not just pick and choose from St. Augustine either. They must take him as a whole and he certainly was no Protestant who held to Sola Scriptura.
"What else did St. Augustine have to say"
You can't get everything right, after all, he was human too.
How many people say that they are Christian, and yet do not believe in obeying the Ten Commandments? It is beyond belief.
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.