Posted on 01/05/2002 11:55:52 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
I don't know where you get emphatic. It all sounds pretty convoluted to me, and I don't know where you showed that Rome "emphatically" denies that Augustine taught this. Did this interpretation from Mt. 11 originate with Augustine? And what, by the way, is the point? Are you trying to prove that Calvinists are the sole keepers of the true faith? By proving that Augustine agreed with your founder? Or do you go through all these mental gymnastics merely to expose what you would characterize as a Roman lie. I can honestly tell you I have never heard anyone in the Church preach that Augustine did not ever teach "absolute double predestination."
Chuck me thinks you do protest too much :>)) You know that a kiss has significance..do you really think it is OK for any Christian to honor the book which glorifies a false god? Most Protestants are appalled at that. Perhaps is is because Jesus was betrayed with a kiss that it has special spiritual significance.
Luke 22
47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
The Pope is supposed to speak with the authority of Christ Chuck..and he kissed the book of the moon god..giving it equal footing in the eyes of many with the Holy Bible.(I will bet the Mullas laughed out loud at the PR that got them!)
I believe that he was showing respect to the people who revere the book. In retrospect, perhaps he was prescient in recognizing the need to strengthen the relationship between Islam and Christianity. Of course, he could also launch a crusade, but no matter what he does, he will always be villified.You can be certain of that.
The key word is "vain" not "repetitions. If repetition of prayer is the teaching, then Jesus Himself violated this when He prayed three times the same prayer in the garden of Gethsemane:
Matthew 26:39 "...My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt."
A true Christian will show works. But the false Christian may show works which demonstrate no faith, or worse, an antithesis to faith.
If one has faith, one will have works.
Do you think it is OK for any Christians to honor the book which glorifies a false god? Most Protestants are appalled by that.
As are many Catholics. But perhaps those appalled aren't aware that the Koran exhorts it's believers to submit to the God of Abraham. Thus the false god accusation isn't entirely applicable.
The pope is supposed to speak with the authority of Christ....and he kissed the book of the moon god.
Our Lord was also accused of blasphemy and engaging in scandalous activities. He was ridiculed for associating with sinners,allowing prostitutes to wash his feet,and for performing miracles on the sabbath, to give a few examples off the top of my head. Apparantly the pope is ascribing to the spirit of the law and not the letter, as his Master taught.
I will repeat here that one should not look upon the gesture as reverence for the book, but more as an act of respect for the people who revere the book.
Let me back up a bit.
The doctrine of predestination was the topic of what was arguably Augustine's most important contribution to Christian theology. Augustine correctly understood something which most people refuse to grasp--which is that true predestination and true free will can be and, in fact, are both true. He discovered this truth in the Bible itself.
The idea that the actions of creatures endued with true free will can be and are absolutely predestined was perhaps the most striking thing about Augustine's confession of his Creator. It lies at the very heart of his faith. The doctrine of predestination told him Who God really is. It told Augustine what it meant when he confessed from the heart that Jesus is LORD.
(Needless to say, if Augustine was correct about this doctrine of absolute predestination, then most churchgoers don't clearly know Augustine's God and may not know Him at all. And if Augustine was correct, then the fact that so many people will publicly confess Jesus as Lord means next to nothing.
The problem is, using Jesus' name means nothing in an idolater--i.e., in someone who refuses to grasp the Being and nature of the Lord. When a lost person uses the Lord's name, it's merely a violation of the Third Commandment. It just aggravates that fool's looming damnation in lipservice hypocrisy, in self-deceptive religiosity.)
What I am saying in all of this is that the doctrine of predestination is rather important for knowing Who our Creator is and Who is the True Lord of the true Christian.
It therefore behooves us to be sure we learn what Augustine learned. This discussion is no place for petty denominational pride masquerading as a noble spirit.
"No problem," says today's typical RC. "Augustine is our guy."
But this is precisely the kind of attitude which RCs must not, have under the circumstances. It turns out that it will block the RC from understanding Augustine. The RC will try to read Augustine as upholding the RCC's modern doctrine of predestination. And that bias is the source of all the "convolutions" to which you referred in your post to me. My goodness, Augustine actually opposes the modern RCC position. If you weren't so busy trying to make him agree with your modern RC notions, you would immediately see this.
The funny thing is, we Calvinists see Augustine's exposition of Matthew 11 as remarkably straightforward, not convoluted at all. One of the main reasons why we have no trouble reading Augustine is because we are not RCs. We don't bring modern RC presuppositions into the study. We just read what he says. (It's a refreshing approach. You should try it. But RCs are taught not to do this.)
***
The overarching question in our discussion is this: Did Augustine teach a real predestination, i.e., one in which God truly fixes the future, including the issues of salvation, with true certainty?
In other words, Did Augustine regard God as the Planner and First Cause of all things, including the salvation and damnation of individual souls? And if you will pardon a bit of a redundancy, Did Augustine specifically understand the Scriptures as teaching that non-elect sinners are predestined to hell?
Augustine's exposition of Matthew 11 gives what I personally regard as a crystal clear answer. He declares, point blank, that Tyre and Sidon did not believe because God deliberately withheld the very means by which they might have believed. In other words, they were not chosen for conversion to God in Christ; in other words, God had no intention of converting them to Himself. God even went through the planning step of considering what it would take to draw them to Himself and chose not to draw them in this way.
This is a severe position, but Augustine asserts that it is quite evidently the correct way to understand the text and the overall Biblical doctrine of predestination. In fact, when an objector proposes to Augustine what would appear to be a softer position, Augustine immediately and quickly slaps him down with a counter-counterargument. In this way, Augustine is hammering his point home. He reaffirms that the severe position is the correct one. (Never mind that truth-suppressing sinners have a hard time swallowing this bitter pill of doctrine!)
And Augustine even goes on to say that he believes that his own counter-counterargument is unanswerable.
Under the circumstances, I do regard Augustine as being pretty emphatic.
and I don't know where you showed that Rome "emphatically" denies that Augustine taught this.
I admit that I didn't bother to "show" this. But read the articles in the RCC's standard sources covering Augustinian predestination. The RC articles are a convoluted mess. They pretend that Augustine disagreed with Calvin as to the very absoluteness, the very doubleness of predestination. But this is ridiculous. Calvin and Augustine were both absolute, double predestinarians.
The RCC has denied this for more than four-and-a-half centuries. When you understand the doctrine of predestination, it's rather funny. Rome has simply refused to accept Augustine's position but does not have the nerve to repudiate him. So, Rome just fakes the whole thing.
Did this interpretation from Mt. 11 originate with Augustine?
I dunno. It doesn't much matter to me, since I can defend the doctrine of God's absolute predestination directly from the Bible. As far as I can tell, Augustine got his position from the Bible, too.
And what, by the way, is the point? Are you trying to prove that Calvinists are the sole keepers of the true faith?
I think I have made my point clear in many many posts--so clear, in fact, that I have irked a lot of RCs. But let me make it again. My point is that the RCC and its members are dishonest. Today's RCs will not admit that Augustine agreed with Calvin. And the doctrine of predestination was one of the most important, controversial doctrines of the Reformation. (Luther regarded the predestinarian doctrine of total depravity as the pivotal doctrine of the Reformation. I personally believe he was correct!) Not surprisingly, today's RCs can't even read Augustine in a straightforward, honest way.
The big picture which I am painting for you is that of Rome's apostasy from the faith once delivered unto the saints.
...By proving that Augustine agreed with your founder?
Calvin is not the "founder" of my "movement." Gosh, I am a Baptist. (BTW, the Anabaptists kept Augustine's views of predestination alive in their "movement" outside the RCC for 1100 years, until Luther and Calvin learned the Biblical doctrine of predestination, too." The history of this doctrine is strange. Rome walked away from it and pretended to be still in line with Augustine's position.)
Or do you go through all these mental gymnastics merely to expose what you would characterize as a Roman lie.
Please see what I said above.
I can honestly tell you I have never heard anyone in the Church preach that Augustine did not ever teach "absolute double predestination."
The problem is, the RCC does not uphold a real predestination. Rome's notion of what Augustine taught, the notion which Rome tries to convey to its parishioners, is that predestination is just some kind of vague mystery wherein God intervenes here and there to keep His plan on track with respect to broad points in the plan.
What Augustine really did teach or really did not teach concerning God's predestination never comes up in a way which most RCs would notice anyway. But read the gobbledygook in the Catholic Encyclopedia about Augustinian predestination. It's a smarmy, convoluted mess attacking Calvin and Luther--and doing so in Augustine's name!
Oh, great.
Mohammad made up his religion out of whole cloth..he started with a Egyptian pagan god, he then added some Jewish customs and some christian customs in order to attract both groups into his personal religion. The quran is no more "true" or "holy" than the Book of Mormon. I once worked with a JW we became friends..she told me they looked for Catholics because they didn't know the Bible..they were ordered to stay away from "born agains"
This is just more evidence of the truth of her statement.
Many more examples could be cited, these are a few.
They would have to, in order to remain Roman Catholic. This is the box into which the Bishop of Rome has dictated that Augustine's theology must be made to fit... whether he fits or not.
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.