Oh me oh my.
“The Church Fathers, A Door to Rome”
vs.
“Christ, The Door to Salvation”
Choose wisely.
Race, that knockin' on your trailer door at midnight will be the Swiss Guards. They don't need no stinkin' warrant.
Pope says, "..... this Bannon .... he will never eat lunch in Rome again. Fix it, Tony."
A quick glance suggests that this is a singularly unfortunate piece combining grade school theology and polemics. I have my disagreements with Rome, but this is embarrassing. Moving on.
If some spent more time in prayer and worship and less in proving how wrong Catholics are....well, you fill in the blank.
David Cloud, missionary to Nepal PING
Most any notable Protestant bible commentator of the last few Centuries is far, far more savvy than any of the so-called Catholic church fathers and doctors...
It goes unmentioned that PolyCarp, likely the only true church father couldn't be misidentified as a Catholic by his writings...
There's no doubt in my mind that there were 'real' church fathers who wrote and their writing was actually based upon scripture...And those writings and that history was destroyed by the Roman Constantine Religion...
No matter...We still have the God preserved scriptures to fight off the wiles of the Catholic religion...
I guess that would also mean that we do not need any Protestant commentaries, including the present article.
And thus your witness confirms, unwittingly, the holy catholic apostolic church. The argument that said church engaged in a 1500 year conspiracy to destroy true history but shepherded and transmitted the holy scriptures is cognitive dissonance and thereby rejected.
Interesting reading. A good reference to keep on hand. Thank you.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
These people sat directly under the apostle Paul, yet Paul said they would go into error, and that right soon. And we are to suppose, based on Irenaeus' claim, that it is not possible he could have missed the boat somewhere?
I know people that trust Irenaeus - and all the ECF - explicitly because of such claims of succession. Not me. I'll stick with the scriptures, than you. Great post, Race. I've bookmarked it.
So anyway, here is my post to Vladimir in another thread. The italics are his comments, followed by my replies: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3265374/posts?page=105
But it isn’t.
First of all, your bloggers are incompetent. This one, for example, cites this quotation to prove that Augustine denies the Final Preserverence of the Elect:
"I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said." (On The Gift Of Perseverance)
But the fool does not realize that Augustine here calls Perseverance to be a "gift of God." And if it is a "gift," that means it is given gratuitously, by Augustine's own definition-- that is, not because of our faithfulness or our good works, but by the unmerited grace of God. According to Augustine, since he held to baptismal regeneration, people who were regenerated could lose their salvation; but Augustine is also a Monergist (which is what Calvinism is built on!), and thus whether a person falls away or not depends on whether or not God upholds them by grace. Thus, according to Augustine, the Elect of God can never lose their salvation; nor can anyone lose their salvation because they resisted effectual grace, but, rather, they lose their salvation because they are not given grace at all.
"... the human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but obtains freedom by grace; when the feeling of delight has been imparted through. the same grace, the human will is formed to endure; it is strengthened with unconquerable fortitude; controlled by grace, it never will perish, but, if grace forsake it, it will straightway fall; by the Lord's free mercy it is converted to good, and once converted it perseveres in good; the direction of the human will toward good, and after direction its continuation in good, depend solely upon God's will, not upon any merit of man. Thus there is left to man such free will, if we please so to call it, as he elsewhere describes: that except through grace the will can neither be converted to God nor abide in God; and whatever it can do it is able to do only through grace. "(Augustine, Aurelius. Augustine's Writings on Grace and Free WIll (Kindle Locations 45-46). Monergism Books. Kindle Edition.)
“But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none. John 6:39 Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. 1 John 2:19”. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints) “I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling.” (Augustine, On the Perseverance of the Saints)
"But you write that "these brethren will not have this perseverance so preached as that it cannot be obtained by prayer or lost by obstinacy." In this they are little careful in considering what they say. For we are speaking of that perseverance whereby one perseveres unto the end, and if this is given, one does persevere unto the end; but if one does not persevere unto the end, it is not given, which I have already sufficiently discussed above. (Ibid, Ch. 11)
"Will any one dare to say that this perseverance is not the gift of God, and that so great a possession as this is ours in such wise that if any one have it the apostle could not say to him, 'For what hast thou which thou hast not received?'[ 2] since he has this in such a manner as that he has not received it?" To this, indeed, we are not able to deny, that perseverance in good, progressing even to the end, is also a great gift of God; and that it exists not save it come from Him of whom it is written, "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." (Augustine, Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 10)
Your other bloggers make the same mistake for some odd reason, I suspect more out of laziness than malice. Your "protestant" blogger also makes the very weird assertion:
The Augustinian definition of double predestination, at least as explained by later writers, is not Calvinistic. Augustine himself did not focus much on the double aspect of predestination and explain what the predestination of the reprobate means. However, the later Augustinian tradition as developed by Prosper of Aquitaine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and ultimately the Council of Orange, when defining double predestination always made the point that when men are predestined unto death, they are only predestined based upon foreseen future demerits.
Now, who cares what "later Augustinian" writers have to say about it (though this fool does not even consider them all, just as Jansen or others). Augustine did not believe reprobation or predestination was based on "foreseen merits", but explicitly denies this:
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.” And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who “being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “ (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
Augustine also explicitly contradicts your modern day Popes on the subject of universal grace. For example, compare how your Popes deal with the interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4, and then read Augustine's take:
"In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the sole mediation of Christ: '[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all' (1 Tim 2:4-6)." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Dominus Jesus, n. 13)
"Vatican II adds that the Church is 'a sacrament. . . of the unity of all mankind.' [Lumen Gentium, n. 1] Obviously it is a question of the unity -- which the human race which in itself is differentiated in various ways -- has from God and in God. This unity has its roots in the mystery of creation and acquires a new dimension in the mystery of the Redemption, which is ordered to universal salvation. Since God 'wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,' [1 Tim 2:4] the Redemption includes all humanity and in a certain way all of creation. In the same universal dimension of Redemption the Holy Spirit is acting, by virtue of the 'departure of Christ.' Therefore the Church, rooted through her own mystery in the Trinitarian plan of salvation with good reason regards herself as the 'sacrament of the unity of the whole human race.' She knows that she is such through the power of the Holy Spirit, of which power she is a sign and instrument in the fulfillment of God's salvific plan." (Pope John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem, n. 64)
Now read Augustine:
“Or, it is said, “Who will have all men to be saved;” not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by “all men,” the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, “For kings, and for all that are in authority,” who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,” that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” [I Tim. 2:1-4]. God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: “Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb” [Luke 11:42]. For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by “every herb,” every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by “all men,” every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if “He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth” [Ps. 115:3]. as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.” (Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 103. Interpretation of the Expression in I Tim. 2:4: “Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved”.)
This is also exactly the Calvinistic interpretation of this same verse.
Your links have a whole lot of other claims in them that would take too long for me to sort out. However, I think this is good enough to demonstrate that Augustine was a Monergist, and therefore was in opposition to Romanist Synergism/works-righteousness.
The OP mentions the controversy with the Donatists and also asserts that Augustine believed in common Romanist tropes about the authority of the church above the scripture.
Interestingly, when Augustine actually debated with the Donatists, he did not do so the way Roman Papists do, always thumping their chest about their authority, but directly appealed to the authority of scripture:
“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. My emphasis)
. . .
“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). (My emphasis)
Webster says that Augustine basically says,
“Since both parties adhere to the truth of Scripture and believe them to be the word of God, it is scripture which should be the final arbiter.”
Augustine writes, “just as this doesn’t need an interpreter” several times in his appeal to the Donatists. Augustine believed that theses Scriptures were clear and perspicuous, and did not need an infallible interpreter to settle the dispute.
In one of his sermons Augustine gives this exegesis of the rock of Matthew 16:
“Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15–19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ. Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer”
(John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/12/augustines-unity-of-church-finally.html
Also, on the concept of purgatory, it appears Augustine speculated on the topic early on, but then later denied it. On the “eucharist necessary for salvation,” Augustine did not believe that participating in the Lord’s table granted salvation. He believed that salvation was given through faith in Jesus Christ which spiritually fulfilled the command to eat Christ’s flesh and blood. He did believe Christians were obligated to be baptized and to attend the Lord’s supper physically, but only because these are commands, not because he thought that the physical act of itself was effectual to salvation.