Augustine vs. Catholicism

Research | 5/8/2015 | Myself

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

In fact, I see at least one quote from that document which says the very opposite:

In fact, you probably did not get the quote from reading the document, but from googling, as the text is quite clear what Augustine is saying here. He says quite clearly in a number of writings that Grace is not given according to merit-- that is, human merit. Rather, Augustine's position is that Grace is given for Grace, which is what he affirms a few sentences lower from this quotation. "[G]race is not rendered to works, but is given freely, it must be confessed without any doubt, that eternal life is called grace for the reason that it is rendered to those merits which grace has conferred upon man. Because that saying is rightly understood which in the gospel is read, "grace for grace,"[ 1]--that is, for those merits which grace has conferred."

In other words, the Christian is he who "shows mercy" because God moves him to be merciful, and then crowns his own gifts. The grace that is given to Christians to make them merciful is given without regard to human merit, whether forseen or otherwise, or without foresight of the human will. Rather, this grace works to give men a good will and mercy.

As for the location of the quote in question.... after reading through the whole book again I realized it was not there, and upon further searching I realize now I have put the wrong citation. It is, in fact, from a letter, and the correct citation is: August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Clearly St, Augisutine agrees with the Church’s doctrine that the promises are not here already while we “run the race” and we are not perfected yet on earth.

The quote in question is not speaking of salvation, but of sanctification, that is, growing in God.

[HossB86]

Thou art Cephas (Rock)and on this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

Mistranslation perpetrated continuously by Rome. Sorry, but this is what it says:

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The this Jesus was referring to is found in the preceding verse... the confession that Jesus was the Son of God... Christ is THE Rock.. THE foundation.

Bold is mine.

Peter and rock sound the same but Christ didn't build Christ's Church on anyone other than Christ. I'm not a "PETERian" - Catholics may want to claim that dubiousness... but not me -- I am a CHRISTian.

Hoss

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Yes, She (the Church) does. Predestination of the Elect has been formally recognized as infallible dogma by the Church since the Second Council of Orange (529 A.D.). The Church has NEVER, however, accepted the false doctrine of "Predestination of the Damned"--i.e. the Calvinist idea that God created certain souls for the express end of having them damned for all eternity... which is as ridiculous and obscene as it is unbiblical (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4, and many other places).

Notice your use of 1 Tim 2:4. Can you look and see, up above, how Augustine directly interprets that verse? One of the paragraphs above is dedicated to explaining just that one verse. Also note Augustine's words on the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath, and how Grace is given to some, but not all.

You may disagree with Augustine, but you cannot claim Augustine does not teach what he teaches-- and that is the important part for the purposes of this thread.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

All that energy you put into that post could have been put elswhere if you had remembered that no saint and no theologian is authoritative. The Magisterium of the Church is the final arbiter of faith and morals, although any saint or theologian may say the same..

How do you square what is clearly a constructed theology as seen within the Magisterium verses a theology actually taught within the church historically-- as seen within various Church fathers? Doesn't that put you up against Tradition, if your teachings are, in fact, not traditional?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Augustine also held, however, that scripture was the arbiter of disputes:

“The question has been proposed: Is the Church of Christ among the Catholics or among the Donatists? This needs to be determined from specific and clear citations in Holy Scripture. First, evidence is brought forth from the Old Testament and then from the New Testament.” (Augustine, Introduction, On the Unity of the Church)

"But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case" (Chapter 5)

More here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/12/augustines-unity-of-church-finally.html

[metmom]

For God so loved the world that He did NOT send a committee.

[metmom]

This passage doesn't say the Apostles somehow became infallible; it DOES say that the HOLY SPIRIT will guide them to all the truth.

It actually shows that the apostles were NOT infallible. They wouldn't need to be guided into all truth if they were infallible.

[paladinan]

In fact, you probably did not get the quote from reading the document, but from googling, as the text is quite clear what Augustine is saying here.

...followed by:

As for the location of the quote in question.... after reading through the whole book again I realized it was not there, and upon further searching I realize now I have put the wrong citation. It is, in fact, from a letter, and the correct citation is: August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106.

So... is the latter comment your version of saying, "Oops, my bad... maybe you actually HAVE the document in your library after all (instead of "probably" Googling it), and my apologies for giving the wrong citation"?

I need to dash, for now; I'll address your other points when I have a free moment, but re: your assertion that St. Augustine thought that Scripture "was the arbiter of disputes" (without any qualifiers to your view), have you read the quote from St. Augustine that I gave in Comment #2?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

So... is the latter comment your version of saying, "Oops, my bad... maybe you actually HAVE the document in your library after all

If you have it in your library, you did not read more than a few words within it.

[HossB86]

It actually shows that the apostles were NOT infallible. They wouldn't need to be guided into all truth if they were infallible.

Amen. Absolutely correct.

Hoss

[RnMomof7]

12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

This was the promise of Pentecost.. the first time that the Holy Spirit indwelled men... Does that mean that the apostles and the saved are infallible... nope.. It means we have the direction of the Holy Spirit in determining truth ...

See how John understood it
1 John 4: We are of God: he that knows God hears us; he that is not of God hears not us. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. .He did not see it as infallibility, but rather as discernment ..

Now lets look at the "popes" infallibility

Was Peter becoming a judaizer an infallible decision???

[rwa265]

My understanding of the infallibility of the Apostles is that, when they spoke of the things that Jesus taught them, they spoke the truth through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Not that they never goofed up, which Peter certainly did. But that what they said was free from doctrinal error.

[stonehouse01]

“The quote in question is not speaking of salvation ...”

That is your personal (and wrong) interpretation.

The quote from St. Paul to the Philippians used by St. Augustine to make his point here is that it is not enough to believe or have the true faith, but that we must strive and labour to the end in the way of perfection; secondly that St. Paul did not look upon himself as absolutely certain of his perfection, how much greater would this presumption be of us?

Notice it is not works instead of belief, it is BOTH that are required for perfection.

This is St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis and his position carries far more weight than the interpretation of some late date reformer.

St. Paul expected works along with belief: Colossians 3:25; Romans 2:6

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

The quote from St. Paul to the Philippians used by St. Augustine to make his point here is that it is not enough to believe or have the true faith, but that we must strive and labour to the end in the way of perfection;

“If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.” (Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4.)

“For who makes thee to differ, and what has thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. iv. 7). Our merits therefore do not cause us to differ, but grace. For if it be merit, it is a debt; and if it be a debt, it is not gratuitous; and if it be not gratuitous, it is not grace. (Augustine, Sermon 293)

[RnMomof7]

This is St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis and his position carries far more weight than the interpretation of some late date reformer.

And yet it is not infallible.. just one mans fallible opinion...worth as much as GPH and mine

[stonehouse01]

just one man’s opinion.

This is exactly the point that I was making. Why is the non catholic position correct when different from the catholic position? Who decides? The idea that the Catholic position is not based on scripture is simply a myth and plain wrong. These early Church Doctors spent their LIVES in scripture study and concluded the Catholic positions.

There is some overlap in the positions (that Catholics agree upon, by the way, the earliest Bishops weren’t in lock step then and aren’t now unless a doctrine is pronounced ex cathedra, which is rare). This idea that Augustine preached sola fide is ridiculous. Catholics understand that faith is required for salvation and Augustine reiterates the position - there is no split between Augustine and Catholicism other than a made up one.

These men preached the sacraments, understood a laying on of hands hierarchy, passed on oral Tradition (sacred Tradition, not the Mosaic law “t”radition of men condemned by Scripture) and studied scripture.

The issue is not the divergence of opinion, but which to believe - this is a false concept of infallibilty that has been set up.