Augustine and Calvin, the Scriptures and the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pete_Holter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pete_Holter

Guest
Greetings in the LORD, everybody!

I have been having an exchange with James Swan via the Called to Communion website and James’ blog.
My response to his most recent post will be forthcoming. My final post to the CTC website has been stuck in moderation for a couple of days and I don’t know if it will make it through. So I thought I’d post my thoughts here before moving on to respond to James’ most recent post. These comments of mine don’t really interact with James Swan, except that they help to highlight some fundamental differences between John Calvin and Saint Augustine concerning their appreciation of the relationship that exists between the Church and the Scriptures, and how we can come to recognize what books belong in the canon.

And, thank you, James, for interacting with me. I really appreciate the exchange.

Here is what I tried to post (with some editing)…

I wanted to clarify what I meant when I said, “Robert Bellarmine referenced the same material that I presented above.” Bellarmine had cited Augustine’s On the Predestination of the Saints and Tractate 105 on John, and Irenaeus in [Controversiarum de Verbo Dei (http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080015572_C/1080015572_T1/1080015572_12.pdf) (see the top of the rightmost column on page 3). Since I had already located these three references before I was able to find Bellarmine, I didn’t mention him until Toledo.
 
In his response to the Fourth Session, Calvin said that “We must ever adhere to Augustine’s rule, ‘Faith is conceived from the Scriptures’ ” (Antidote to the Council of Trent).

Let me just start with a slight adjustment to the impression that John Calvin’s quotation gives. What is essential for Augustine is that the Church not contradict the Scriptures:

“Oh how I wish that he were never willing to add, I will not say anything but what he reads in the Scriptures, but in opposition to what he reads in them; that he would only faithfully and obediently hear that which is written there” (, Ch. 39:46On Nature and Grace).

The other essentials, according to Augustine, are for Christians to receive their interpretation of the Scriptures from the Church in settled matters, and to interpret the Scriptures with the Church in unsettled ones. The “Church” in connection with this is the visible Church known throughout the whole world to hold the episcopacy through a continuous succession from the apostles. If Augustine got to meet Calvin, he would first of all rebuke him for using the Bible against this Church, the Church of Jesus Christ.

Augustine acknowledged that “not small is the authority… of the whole Church” (, 3On the Care of the Dead). Indeed, the Pelagians were forced to “admit the necessity of baptizing infants,— finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 26:39On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants). And, moving beyond the authority of “invariable custom… held by the whole Church” – to which, even if alone, all Christians should be disposed to submit as having “been handed down by apostolical authority” – all Christians “must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world,” because the Church itself possesses “the summit of authority …] from the apostolic chair through successions of Bishops” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 24:32On Baptism, Against the Donatists, , Bk. 2, Ch. 3:4On Baptism, Against the Donatists, and , 17:35On the Profit of Believing). And we need not fear the triumph of heresy over this Church because it has God’s protection in the promises of Christ…

“For though they seek their own objects, they do not dare to teach their own doctrines, sitting as they do in the high places of ecclesiastical authority, which is established on sound doctrine. Wherefore our Lord Himself, before saying what I have just quoted about men of this stamp, made this observation: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.’ The seat they occupied, then, which was not theirs but Moses’, compelled them to say what was good, though they did what was evil. And so they followed their own course in their lives, but were prevented by the seat they occupied, which belonged to another, from preaching their own doctrines …] which seat He doubtless meant to be a figure of His own” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 27:59On Christian Doctrine and , Bk. 2, Ch. 61:138Against Petilian).

“The heavenly Master went so far in forewarning them that He even warned His people against bad rulers, lest, on their account, the saving chair of doctrine should be forsaken, in which even the wicked are forced to utter truth; for the words they speak come not from themselves but from God, and He has placed the teaching of truth upon the chair of unity. Therefore, He, being truthful and the very truth itself, says of rulers, doing their own evil deeds but speaking the good things of God: ‘What they say, do ye, but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not.’ 56 Doubtless He would not have said: ‘according to their works do ye not,’ if their works had not been manifestly evil” (Letter 105).

To help illustrate the binding authority of the Church, consider the following passage:

“[A]lthough I find something written by Catholics on the subject [of the origin of the soul], yet the defence of the truth had not yet been undertaken against those men, neither was there any anxiety to answer them. But this I say, that according to the Holy Scriptures original sin is so manifest, and that this is put away in infants by the laver of regeneration is confirmed by such antiquity and authority of the catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the Church, that what is argued by the inquiry or affirmation of anybody concerning the origin of the soul, if it is contrary to this, cannot be true. Wherefore, whoever builds up, either concerning the soul or any other obscure matter, any edifice whence he may destroy this, which is true, best founded, and best known, whether he is a son or an enemy of the Church, must either be corrected or avoided” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 10:26Against Two Letters of the Pelagians).
 
In the previous citation, the fact of original sin is founded by Augustine on the Holy Scriptures themselves; but the fact that original sin “is put away in infants by the laver of regeneration” is not rested by Augustine upon the authority of the Scriptures, but upon the “antiquity and authority of the catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the Church.” The two-fold teaching is “true, best founded, and best known,” and whatever “is contrary to this, cannot be true.” Augustine says that whoever opposes this teaching “must either be corrected or avoided,” indicating thereby that this is a question of heresy, and one for which Augustine did not feel compelled to appeal to the Scriptures in order to answer definitively, the authority of the Church alone sufficing. This is a perfect example of the types of situations he had in mind when he said that “the practice of the Church of God is the rule of our practice” (Letter 87). But this example goes beyond mere practice, and tells us something that Christians were bound to believe, for the one “who does not believe” that infants are delivered from condemnation by the sacrament of baptism “is assuredly an unbeliever” (Letter 98). “Whence they are compelled to class baptized infants in the number of believers, and to assent to the authority of the Holy Universal Church, which does not account those unworthy of the name of believers” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 2:2On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants). So Calvin is not right to give the impression that Augustine stands with him in holding that such practices of the early Church had “nothing to do with the doctrine of faith, (as to it we cannot extract one iota from them,) but only with external rites subservient to decency or discipline.” Augustine does indeed argue for this truth from the Scriptures, but his certainty of this truth is derived from the practice of the Church.

I’m sorry for the length, but let me bring forward that familiar passage that explains the relationship that exists between the two inseparable authorities for the Christian, namely, the Scriptures and the Church:

“hould you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ’s betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 1:26); which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me” (, Ch. 5:6Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus).
 
The authority of the Church and the supreme authority of the Scriptures go together and they either stand or fall together in Augustine’s mind. If you separate the one from the other, you end up losing both. When confronted with the most famous line from this passage – “I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” – Calvin referred his readers to Augustine’s treatise, On the Profit of believing, in order to have Augustine’s true meaning “more fully proved” ( 1.7.3Institutes). But here is what Augustine says in this referenced treatise:

“When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?” (, 17:35On the Profit of Believing; translation taken from Satis Cognitum)

Keep in mind that this is where John Calvin himself told us to go in order to obtain fuller proof of Augustine’s true thought on the matter! And Augustine’s proposal to his friend in this treatise is exactly what Calvin refused to do: he refused to learn the Scriptures from those who held the episcopacy through apostolic succession in Catholic unity. 😦

When faced with the writings of the Manichaeans, Augustine said that “It will be difficult for a man to make me believe him on the evidence of writings which derive all their authority from his own word,” and that what such a man would need in order to convince Augustine of the truth of those writings is “the authority of the churches founded by the apostles themselves” (, Bk. 13, Ch. 4Against Faustus). Catholics know that the Scriptures are authoritative because their apostolic authority “is confirmed by the agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils.” The books of the Manichaeans, on the other hand, “have no authority, for it is an authority maintained by only a few” (, Bk. 13, Ch. 5Against Faustus). Again, for the Catholic, Scriptural authority is “affirmed by the continuous testimony of the whole Church, from the days of apostolic presidency to the bishops of our own time” and “fully established by the traditions of various communities, and of their presidents.” We believe the Scriptures are the authoritative word of God because we are convinced of such authority by the authority of the Church who believes in them. In doing so, we “yield our belief to a book acknowledged and approved as handed down from the beginning in the Church founded by Christ Himself, and maintained through the apostles and their successors in an unbroken connection all over the world to the present day” (, Bk. 28, Ch. 2Against Faustus). Augustine would tell Calvin that this is his true thought on the matter:

“If you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognize that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all” (, Bk. 33, 9Against Faustus).
 
Consider a further point on the canon…

“From all this it follows, that no one who has not yielded to the malicious and deceitful suggestions of lying devils, can be so blinded by passion as to deny the ability of the Church of the apostles—a community of brethren as numerous as they were faithful—to transmit their writings unaltered to posterity, as the original seats of the apostles have been occupied by a continuous succession of bishops to the present day” (, Bk. 33, Ch. 6Against Faustus).

Do we allow this Church to preserve only the books themselves, but not their interpretation? I refer the reader back to the quotation provided above from On the Profit of Believing in order to point such a thought out with Augustine’s words as “most impious and above measure arrogant,” and “evidence of pride and rashness.” To choose Calvin’s interpretation of the Scriptures over that of the Church’s would be the height of absurdity to Augustine’s mind. Calvin used the Church to preserve the Scriptures for him and lead him to them; but once he had them, he threw away that same Church and brought in another of “small number” ( 1.7.5Institutes). This is far from Augustine’s thought! 🙂

As for the question of the Canon, Calvin asks us to “assume that the point was then undecided” because Augustine “testifies that all of his age did not take the same view.” Calvin wants canonicity “to be decided by arguments drawn from the case itself” (Antidote to the Council of Trent). And so do we. But arguments made by whom? Certainly not by a schismatic or a heretic. If we ask Augustine from whom we should receive our canon, he will tell us that it will be made known to us from the arguments sifted by the Church in council. For “to whom does He reveal [any unsettled point of doctrine or practice] when it is His will (be it in this life or in the life to come), save to those who walk in the way of peace, and stray not aside into any schism? Not to such as those who have not known the way of peace, or for some other cause have broken the bond of unity” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 5:6On Baptism, Against the Donatists). God reveals the truth of disputed points to those who are willing to be “submitted to the authority and power of a plenary Council” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 9:14On Baptism, Against the Donatists). It is the Church “to which also God has now revealed in a plenary Council the point in which ye were then still otherwise minded” (, Bk. 6, Ch. 39:76On Baptism, Against the Donatists), “the point” in our case being the canon of Scripture. For “the safe course for us is, not to advance with any rashness of judgment in setting forth a view which has neither been started in any regionary Council of the Catholic Church nor established in a plenary one; but to assert, with all the confidence of a voice that cannot be gainsaid, what has been confirmed by the consent of the universal Church, under the direction of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (, Bk. 7, Ch. 53:102On Baptism, Against the Donatists)!

Augustine does not leave us without explicit instruction as to which canon to receive, but teaches that the Christian “must follow” the canon of Scripture held by either “the greater number of churches,” or “the churches of greater authority,” understanding that the greater authority is being recognized in those loftier Churches because they were “thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 8:12On Christian Doctrine). The Catholic Church, in which we have both the greater number of Churches and those Churches having the greater authority, together with the decisive authority and power of a plenary council, wins our full submission to the canon of the seventy-three books of Sacred Scripture.

John Calvin’s perfect assurance, on the other hand, of having “a thorough conviction” and of feeling “a divine energy living and breathing in” the Bible, and equating these subjective impressions with the unassailable “secret testimony of the Spirit” in order to establish the canon ( 1.7.4-5Institutes), can just as easily be used as a completely sophistical guise capable of cloaking the content of any claim, and employed in the service of making any untrue thing appear true. And surely this proponent of total depravity has not forgotten that the “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jeremiah17:9). Without rejecting the inner witness of the Spirit to what He Himself has written, we rightly remain unpersuaded by such a malleable and subjective “proof” being used against the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and we much more eagerly cling to another “higher source than human conjectures, judgments, or reasons”; namely, the public testimony of the Spirit,” that is, to what has “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). Thanks be to God! 🙂 For “I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

By the grace and love towards man of our LORD, Jesus Christ,
Pete
 
That was the end of my comment for the Called to Communion website.

And in case anyone was interested in seeing a large number of quotations from Augustine that outline his faith concerning the Scripture’s supreme authority, its inerrancy, its salvific import, and its divine inspiration, you can check them out here (7 posts): Augustine on the Bible.

Have a blessed night, everyone!

In Christ,
Pete
 
Hi James!

I hope these thoughts of mine find you well.

I’ll number my responses to match your numbering in your most recent post, here: Calvin, Romans 1:4, and the Vulgate.

Number 1:

“And so, there comes into the world a Son, ‘the seed of the woman’ who will crush the evil of sin in its very origins: ‘He will crush the head of the serpent.’ As we see from the words of the Protogospel, the victory of the woman’s Son will not take place without a hard struggle, a struggle that is to extend through the whole of human history” (Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater).

“It was also foretold, however, that the ‘offspring’ of a woman would one day triumph and would crush the head of the serpent to death; it was foretold that the offspring of the woman – and in this offspring the woman and the mother herself – would be victorious and that thus, through man, God would triumph” (Pope Benedict, Homily for December 8, 2005).

See? We’re comin around! Maybe if you came and helped us from the inside, we’d get things done quicker! 🙂

And let me know if I’m wrong on this, but isn’t the Vulgate being translated as a neuter pronoun in Genesis 3:15 because it is referring back to the neuter, “seed”?

Number 2:

You said, “It appears (at least with this CTC commenter) to be left up to the individual as how this mistranslated verse is to be interpreted. One would think a Romanist would want to go deeper into history and rely on the older interpretation of Origen.”

And yet, Irenaeus beats Origen by a few years. 🙂

Also, Origen seems to be talking about the preexistence of the human soul of Jesus in this excerpt from his commentary when he says, “It is certain that this soul was not born of the seed of David, for he says that what was born of the seed of David was according to the flesh.” Although this may be understood in an orthodox sense, see Jerome’s treatment of this doctrine of the soul’s preexistence in his , Bk. 1, Ch. 22Apology for Himself against the Books of Rufinus. I don’t know very much about Origen, but it seems like Mormons would have more in common with this commentary than either Calvinists or Romanists. Augustine abominated another opinion of Origen in his treatise, , Ch. 3:10On the Proceedings of Pelagius, and wrote in a letter to Optatus that “it is impossible that you should hold the opinion of Origen, Priscillian, and other heretics that it is for deeds done in a former life that souls are confined in earthly and mortal bodies. This opinion is, indeed, flatly contradicted by the apostle who says of Jacob and Esau that before they were born they had done neither good nor evil” (Letter 144 in Jerome’s collection).

But as far as rejecting the predestination of Christ when speaking of His divinity, and of proclaiming His predestination when speaking of His humanity, we embrace both.

And we are happy to have the most accurate translations possible. We agree with Augustine that, “As to the books of the New Testament, again, if any perplexity arises from the diversities of the Latin texts, we must of course yield to the Greek”; and that we “need two other languages for the knowledge of Scripture, Hebrew and Greek, that [we] may have recourse to the original texts if the endless diversity of the Latin translators throw [us] into doubt” (, Bk. 2, 15:22 & 11:16On Christian Doctrine).

I think we are agreed on everything in Number 2.
 
Number 3:

You had written, “Before attributing such unscrupulous polemics to Calvin’s Antidote to Trent, perhaps we should consider whether Calvin may have rather had contemporary Vulgate exegetes in mind when he stated ‘Those not acquainted with Greek are at a loss to explain this term.’ It would appear to me though, Calvin probably is referring to contemporary exegetes.”

John Calvin was the one to really introduce me to Augustine. I had heard of Augustine before then, and had seen a quote from him here and there, but Calvin is the one who really introduced us. But after reading his Institutes, and moving from there to study the writings of Augustine “first-hand,” I was disappointed – and have only become more and more disappointed as I continue reading – by the way that John Calvin abused the authority of Augustine. The Augustine that I met through John Calvin is not the Augustine that I’ve grown to know and love since then through his own writings. The “predestination of the Son of God” issue is just one example (in this case, of failing to bring forward Augustine when it was appropriate to do so). I want to be fair, but the end result is that John Calvin presented a distorted Augustine, and Augustine would have been absolutely appalled with the way that Calvin was using him against the Church. If this was the only time I saw Calvin do something like this, then ok. But when you see a general pattern forming through repeated occurrences, it is hard to give the benefit of the doubt. I believe that he was being driven along by a hostile and heretical spirit, and that his constant barrage of criticisms against the Church caused a blindness to come over him as he strove to cast the Church the worst possible light.

The problem remains that John Calvin pointed to some certain people and drew attention to the fact that they couldn’t explain the predestination of the Son of God. Whether even this is true, I don’t know. But he presented the conundrum as if there wasn’t an answer to be had, either from himself or from anyone else. He also said that the reason the non Greek speakers were at a loss was “because, properly speaking, only things which do not yet exist are predestinated; whereas Christ is the eternal Son of God.” Please notice that he brought in the word “eternal” when this isn’t stated in the text of Romans 1:4. The result of this is another layer of deception, because if he had remained with the text, and simply called Jesus the “Son of God,” he would be forced to remember his own arguments made elsewhere when talking about the humanity of the “Son of God.” But he brought in the words “properly speaking” and “eternal” in order to give himself an escape if anyone brought him to task on what he had said. It appears that these terms are serving as cloaks in order to hide his penchant for criticizing the Church.

In his commentary on John 6:38, Calvin says, “As to the distinction which Christ makes between his own will and the will of the Father, in this respect, he accommodates himself to his hearers, because, as the mind of man is prone to distrust, we are wont to contrive some diversity which produces hesitation.” Well, “properly speaking,” there is only one divine will. 🙂 And the will spoken of here as being “My own will,” is in fact Christ’s human will. Calvin rightly discerns this in Gethsemane where he comments, “for Christ, as he was God, willed nothing different from the Father; and therefore it follows, that his human soul had affections distinct from the secret purpose of God” (, Vol. 3Harmony of the Gospels). Had he not been in such a rush to denigrate the councils in order to promote his own authority, he would have remembered the superior interpretation given at the Third Council of Constantinople for John 6:38:

“For just as his flesh is said to be and is flesh of the Word of God, so too the natural will of his flesh is said to and does belong to the Word of God, just as he says himself: ‘I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me,’ calling his own will that of his flesh, since his flesh too became his own.”

And he would have been readied thereby to offer a similar explanation of the predestination of the Son of God, especially when His “flesh” is mentioned in the immediately preceding verse. At any rate, please notice in this example of “accommodation” that his brilliant mind is more than capable of giving crafty solutions when they serve his purposes, variously resorting in other places to synecdoche, metonymy, anagogy, paralogism, and other figures of speech that I had never heard of before coming to him; and this helps us to discern what might be going on internally when we see him failing to offer any solutions in other cases disagreeable to him.

Moving back to the predestination example, Calvin says that there is “no difficulty in the Greek word, which means ‘declared.’ ” It can mean declared. But even this “declaration” still needs to be explained. I am not sure that “predestination” adds any more problems for the commentator than “declaration.” And Calvin adduced this single corruption from the New Testament as being sufficient to render all other New Testament examples superfluous: “I have given one example. It were needless labor to give others.” If this was the worst he could find…

Most importantly – and I’m sorry to keep emphasizing this, but this was the point of your original post – we do not see either word as an obstacle to embracing the true Catholic faith, which I hope you too will one day embrace. 🙂

With love in Christ,
Pete
 
Let’s consider the following example:

“They define venial sin to be, desire unaccompanied with deliberate assent, and not remaining long in the heart… But every transgression of the Law lays us under the curse, and therefore even the slightest desires cannot be exempted from the fatal sentence. ‘In weighing our sins,’ says Augustine, ‘let us not use a deceitful balance, weighing at our own discretion what we will, and how we will, calling this heavy and that light: but let us use the divine balance of the Holy Scriptures, as taken from the treasury of the Lord, and by it weigh every offence, nay, not weigh, but rather recognise what has been already weighed by the Lord,’ (August. De Bapt. cont. Donatist. Lib. 2 chap. 6.) And what saith the Scripture? Certainly when Paul says, that “the wages of sin is death,” (Rom. 6: 23,) he shows that he knew nothing of this vile distinction… What these men acknowledge to be sin, because they are unable to deny it, they contend is not mortal. Having already indulged this madness too long, let them learn to repent; or, if they persist in their infatuation, taking no further notice of them, let the children of God remember that all sin is mortal, because it is rebellion against the will of God, and necessarily provokes his anger; and because it is a violation of the Law, against every violation of which, without exception, the judgement of God has been pronounced. The faults of the saints are indeed venial, not, however, in their own nature, but because, through the mercy of God, they obtain pardon” (, 2.8.58-59Institutes).

Although Calvin does not come out and say it, the unsuspecting reader would be left with the impression that Augustine likewise rejected the distinction between venial and mortal sins, and that he was being quoted within a similar context of such a rejection. But Augustine upheld this distinction in numerous places:

“ When you have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided” (, 15A Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed).

“For as, on the one hand, there are certain venial sins which do not hinder the righteous man from the attainment of eternal life, and which are unavoidable in this life, so, on the other hand, there are some good works which are of no avail to an ungodly man towards the attainment of everlasting life” (, Ch. 28:48On the Spirit and the Letter).

“He, however, is not unreasonably said to walk blamelessly, not who has already reached the end of his journey, but who is pressing on towards the end in a blameless manner, free from condemnable sins, and at the same time not neglecting to cleanse by almsgiving such sins as are venial” (, Ch. 9:20On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness).

“It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 15:17On Marriage and Concupiscence; cf. 24:27).

“[W]herever we are overcome by the rebellious element, even though ***not mortally but only venially, ***we are nevertheless overcome, and herein we contract something” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 10:33Against Julian).

“For we do not wish to be forgiven for what we doubt not was forgiven in baptism, but certainly we do wish it for those slight but frequent offenses which steal in on our human weakness, and which, if they were added together, would weigh us down and crush us as one great sin would do. What difference does it make to the shipwrecked whether the ship is swallowed up and sunk by one great wave, or whether the water, seeping by degrees into the hold and being disregarded and overlooked through carelessness, fills the ship and carries it down? This is our reason for being on guard by fasting, almsgiving, and prayers. When we pray: ‘Forgive us as we forgive,’ we show that we have sins to be forgiven, and when we humble our souls by these words we do not cease to do what may be called daily penance” (Letter 265).
 
Not looking good so far! 🙂 Let’s see if it gets any better for Calvin when we examine the original context of the citation. When we do this, we see that the purpose that Augustine had in presenting this principle was to lead into the identification of one particular sin as being more egregious than all the rest: the sin of schism!

“At the time when the Lord showed, by the example of recent punishment, that there was need to guard against the sins of olden days, and an idol was made and worshipped, and the prophetic book was burned by the wrath of a scoffing king, and schism was attempted, the idolatry was punished with the sword (cf. Exodus 32), the burning of the book by slaughter in war and captivity in a foreign land (cf. Jeremiah 36), schism by the earth opening, and swallowing up alive the leaders of the schism while the rest were consumed with fire from heaven (cf. Numbers 16). Who will now doubt that that was the worse crime which received the heavier punishment? If men coming from such sacrilegious company, without baptism, as you maintain, could not defile Cyprian, how could those defile you who were not convicted but supposed betrayers of the sacred books? For if they had not only given up the books to be burned, but had actually burned them with their own hands, they would have been guilty of a less sin than if they had committed schism; for schism is visited with the heavier, the other with the lighter punishment, not at man’s discretion, but by the judgment of God… Wherefore, while shunning the lighter offenses… have ye committed the heaviest offense of all, the sacrilege of schism?” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 6:9, 7:11On Baptism, Against the Donatists)

“You are doubtless aware that in the Jewish dispensation the sin of idolatry was committed by the people, and once the book of the prophet of God was burned by a defiant king; the punishment of the sin of schism would not have been more severe than that with which these two were visited, had not the guilt of it been greater. You remember, of course, how the earth opening swallowed up alive the leaders of a schism, and fire from heaven breaking forth destroyed their accomplices. Neither the making and worshipping of an idol, nor the burning of the Holy Book, was deemed worthy of such punishment” (Letter 51, 1).

“Why have you severed yourselves, by the heinous impiety of schism, from the unity of the whole world? … Wherefore will you be guilty of dividing the garments of the Lord, and not hold in common with the whole world that coat of charity, woven from above throughout, which even His executioners did not rend? … If you hate those who do evil, shake yourselves free from the crime of schism… [W]herein has the Christian world offended you, from which you have insanely and wickedly cut yourselves off? … If the surrendering of the sacred books to destruction is a crime which, in the case of the king who burned the book of Jeremiah, God punished with death as a prisoner of war, how much greater is the guilt of schism!” (Letter 76, 1, 3, 4)

“If any can have good grounds (which indeed none can have) for separating themselves from the communion of the whole world, and calling their communion the Church of Christ, because of their having withdrawn warrantably from the communion of all nations—how do you know that in the Christian society, which is spread so far and wide, there may not have been some in a very remote place, from which the fame of their righteousness could not reach you, who had already, before the date of your separation, separated themselves for some just cause from the communion of the whole world? How could the Church in that case be found in your sect, rather than in those who were separated before you?.. We, however, are certain that no one could ever have been warranted in separating himself from the communion of all nations, because every one of us looks for the marks of the Church not in his own righteousness, but in the Divine Scriptures, and beholds it actually in existence, according to the promises” (Letter 93, Ch. 8:25, 9:28).

“Whoever, therefore, shall be separated from this Catholic Church by this single sin of being severed from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the anger of God rests upon him” (Letter 141, 5).

Nothing to do with mortal/venial sin distinctions.

John Calvin brought in the witness of Augustine in order to bolster his repudiation of the notion that sins could be venial “in their own nature.” But the true witness of Augustine, on the other hand, upheld this biblical distinction against Calvin, and ended up condemning Calvin himself for committing the mortal sin of schism, “the heaviest offense of all”!

What amazing providential care God exercises over His Church!

By the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete
 
Pete_Holter said:
Not looking good so far! 🙂 Let’s see if it gets any better for Calvin when we examine the original context of the citation. When we do this, we see that the purpose that Augustine had in presenting this principle was to lead into the identification of one particular sin as being more egregious than all the rest: the sin of schism!

“At the time when the Lord showed, by the example of recent punishment, that there was need to guard against the sins of olden days, and an idol was made and worshipped, and the prophetic book was burned by the wrath of a scoffing king, and schism was attempted, the idolatry was punished with the sword (cf. Exodus 32), the burning of the book by slaughter in war and captivity in a foreign land (cf. Jeremiah 36), schism by the earth opening, and swallowing up alive the leaders of the schism while the rest were consumed with fire from heaven (cf. Numbers 16). Who will now doubt that that was the worse crime which received the heavier punishment? If men coming from such sacrilegious company, without baptism, as you maintain, could not defile Cyprian, how could those defile you who were not convicted but supposed betrayers of the sacred books? For if they had not only given up the books to be burned, but had actually burned them with their own hands, they would have been guilty of a less sin than if they had committed schism; for schism is visited with the heavier, the other with the lighter punishment, not at man’s discretion, but by the judgment of God… Wherefore, while shunning the lighter offenses… have ye committed the heaviest offense of all, the sacrilege of schism?” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 2, Ch. 6:9, 7:11)

“You are doubtless aware that in the Jewish dispensation the sin of idolatry was committed by the people, and once the book of the prophet of God was burned by a defiant king; the punishment of the sin of schism would not have been more severe than that with which these two were visited, had not the guilt of it been greater. You remember, of course, how the earth opening swallowed up alive the leaders of a schism, and fire from heaven breaking forth destroyed their accomplices. Neither the making and worshipping of an idol, nor the burning of the Holy Book, was deemed worthy of such punishment” (Letter 51, 1).

“Why have you severed yourselves, by the heinous impiety of schism, from the unity of the whole world? … Wherefore will you be guilty of dividing the garments of the Lord, and not hold in common with the whole world that coat of charity, woven from above throughout, which even His executioners did not rend? … If you hate those who do evil, shake yourselves free from the crime of schism… [W]herein has the Christian world offended you, from which you have insanely and wickedly cut yourselves off? … If the surrendering of the sacred books to destruction is a crime which, in the case of the king who burned the book of Jeremiah, God punished with death as a prisoner of war, how much greater is the guilt of schism!” (Letter 76, 1, 3, 4)

“If any can have good grounds (which indeed none can have) for separating themselves from the communion of the whole world, and calling their communion the Church of Christ, because of their having withdrawn warrantably from the communion of all nations—how do you know that in the Christian society, which is spread so far and wide, there may not have been some in a very remote place, from which the fame of their righteousness could not reach you, who had already, before the date of your separation, separated themselves for some just cause from the communion of the whole world? How could the Church in that case be found in your sect, rather than in those who were separated before you?.. We, however, are certain that no one could ever have been warranted in separating himself from the communion of all nations, because every one of us looks for the marks of the Church not in his own righteousness, but in the Divine Scriptures, and beholds it actually in existence, according to the promises” (Letter 93, Ch. 8:25, 9:28).

“Whoever, therefore, shall be separated from this Catholic Church by this single sin of being severed from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the anger of God rests upon him” (Letter 141, 5).

Nothing to do with mortal/venial sin distinctions.

John Calvin brought in the witness of Augustine in order to bolster his repudiation of the notion that sins could be venial “in their own nature.” But the true witness of Augustine, on the other hand, upheld this biblical distinction against Calvin, and ended up condemning Calvin himself for committing the mortal sin of schism, “the heaviest offense of all”!

What amazing providential care God exercises over His Church!

By the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete
Click to expand...
Hi Pete ! Congratulations for all these insightful contributions offered to CAF. Very nice food for thought for reformed brothers and everybody interested in approaching St. Augutine’s mindset. See you. 🙂
 
Pete_Holter said:
“When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?” (On the Profit of Believing, 17:35; translation taken from Satis Cognitum)
Click to expand...
These are the kinds of Augustinian quotes that tempt me to think Reformed-tradition folks who try to claim custody of Augustine aren’t even informed enough to belong in the conversation. It’s so alien to modern Reformed theology.

Nice work, Pete. Lots of good Augustine quotes with resourced links here.
 
I’d like to come back to the definition of venial sin that John Calvin rejected, because there was something that I didn’t sufficiently highlight in my contrast of John Calvin’s presentation of Augustine, with the real Augustine:

“They define venial sin to be, desire unaccompanied with deliberate assent, and not remaining long in the heart” (, 2.8.58-59Institutes).

Although I haven’t found the exact words, I am willing to contend that this is an accurate summary of Augustine’s very own definition. Let’s take a closer look at Augustine’s thought on this subject:

“The reason that we who toil in this war as long as human life is a trial on the earth are not without sin is not that that thing called sin works in our members in this way, warring against the law of the mind, even though we do not consent to unlawful acts (for as much as pertains to us, we would always be without sin until this evil is healed if we never consented to evil); but that wherever we are overcome by the rebellious element, even though not mortally but only venially, we are nevertheless overcome, and herein we contract something, whence we daily say: ‘Forgive us our trespasses.’ For instance — husband and wife when for the sake of pleasure alone they exceed the limit necessary for procreation; or celibates when they linger with some delight in such thoughts, not indeed deciding to commit crime, but not turning away the intention of the mind as they should in order that they do not fall into sin, or not tearing it away if it falls” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 10:33Against Julian).

“Because he was unwilling to covet, and yet did covet, and for all that did not by any means obey this concupiscence so as to yield assent to it, he immediately adds these words: ‘Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me’ ” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 27:30On Marriage and Concupiscence).

“That man, therefore, alone speaks the truth when he says, It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me, who only feels the concupiscence, and neither resolves on doing it with the consent of his heart, nor accomplishes it with the ministry of his body” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 28:31On Marriage and Concupiscence).

“In this so great conflict, wherein man under Grace lives, and when, being aided, he fights well, rejoices in the Lord with trembling, there yet are not wanting even to valiant warriors, and mortifiers however unconquered of the works of the flesh, some wounds of sins, for the healing of which they may say daily, ‘Forgive us our debts’: against the same vices, and against the devil the prince and king of vices, striving with much greater watchfulness and keenness by the very prayer, that his deadly suggestions avail not aught, whereby he further urges the sinner to excuse rather than accuse his own sins; and thus those wounds not only be not healed, but also, although they were not deadly, yet may be pressed home to grievous and fatal harm” (, 13On Continence).

“In this state of war there are lessened daily in such as make progress, not sins only, but the very lusts also, with which, by not consenting, we strive, and by consenting unto which we sin” (, 20On Continence).

Augustine speaks of “the motions themselves” which are “still living in a certain intrusion of their own, without the consent of our mind, without the action of the members of the body”…

“And how are they mortified by the work of continence, save when we consent not to them with the mind, nor are the members of the body yielded to them as weapons; and, what is greater, and to be looked to with yet greater watchfulness of continence, our very thought itself, although in a certain way it be touched by their suggestion, and as it were, whisper, yet turns away from these, that it receive not delight from them, and turns to more delightful thoughts of things above” (, 29On Continence).

In summary, venial sin takes place at the interface between concupiscence and evil desire. When Augustine talks about the intrusion of concupiscence and of our thought being touched by its motions, and of contracting something “even though we do not consent to unlawful acts,” he is most clearly putting forth the very definition that John Calvin provided and rejected. For Calvin to bring in Augustine as a witness against what is clearly derived from his very own thought in order to criticize the Catholic Church…

For more on Augustine’s teaching on concupiscence, see Augustine on Concupiscence: Part 1 and Augustine on Concupiscence: Part 2.

With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
 
Hey Pneuma07 and MarcoPolo!

Thanks a lot for taking the time to encourage me. 🙂 I hope that God is able to use this information to glorify Himself and advance His kingdom of love in the hearts of His children. If you (or anyone else who reads this) ever detect any sin in the way I post on these forums, please rebuke me. Thanks, brothers!

Love,
Pete
 
Pete_Holter said:
Hey Pneuma07 and MarcoPolo!

Thanks a lot for taking the time to encourage me. 🙂 I hope that God is able to use this information to glorify Himself and advance His kingdom of love in the hearts of His children. If you (or anyone else who reads this) ever detect any sin in the way I post on these forums, please rebuke me. Thanks, brothers!

Love,
Pete
Click to expand...
These are wonderful quotes for us because we can understand them. Protestants believe that they are already in the Church so, this don’t mean nothing to them. I hope you can win some souls with this.

I have a presbyterian friend who likes to quote St Augustin quite a bit. When I showed other quotes from St Augustin, she told me, they don’t take them as of any importance to them. Meaning she doesn’t hold him as any one in authority.
 
PATRISTICA. La Epístola apócrifa de los Hechos de Felipe, expone al cristianismo como continuación de la educación en los valores de la paideia griega (cultivo de sí). Que tenía como propósito educar a la juventud en la “virtud” (desarrollo de la espiritualidad mediante la práctica continua de ejercicios espirituales, a efecto de prevenir y curar las enfermedades del alma, para alcanzar la trascendencia humana) y la “sabiduría” (cuidado de la verdad, mediante el estudio de la filosofía, la física y la política, a efecto de alcanzar la sociedad perfecta). El educador utilizando el discurso filosófico, más que informar trataba de inducir transformaciones buenas y convenientes para si mismo y la sociedad, motivando a los jóvenes a practicar las virtudes opuestas a los defectos encontrados en el fondo del alma, a efecto de adquirir el perfil de humanidad perfecta (cero defectos) La vida, ejemplo y enseñanzas de Cristo, ilustra lo que es la trascendencia humana y como alcanzarla. Y por su autentico valor propedéutico, el apóstol Felipe introdujo en los ejercicios espirituales la paideia de Cristo (posteriormente enriquecida por San Basilio, San Gregorio, San Agustín y San Clemente de Alejandría, con el pensamiento de los filósofos greco romanos: Aristóteles, Cicerón, Diógenes, Isócrates, Platón, Séneca, Sócrates, Marco Aurelio,), a fin de alcanzar los fines últimos de la paideia griega siguiendo a Cristo. Meta que no se ha logrado debido a que la letrina moral del Antiguo Testamento, al apartar la fe de la razón, castra mentalmente a sus seguidores extraviándolos hacia la ecumene abrahámica que conduce al precipicio de la perdición eterna (muerte espiritual) El reto actual, es formular un cristianismo laico que se pueda vivir y practicar, no en y desde lo religioso y lo sagrado, sino en y desde el humanismo, la pluralidad y el sincretismo, a fin de afrontar con éxito los retos de la modernidad. Es tiempo de rectificar retomando la paideia griega de Cristo (helenismo cristiano), separando de nuestra fe el Antiguo Testamento y su religión basura que han impedido a los pueblos cristianos alcanzar la supra humanidad. Pierre Hadot: Ejercicios Espirituales y Filosofía Antigua. Editorial Siruela. es.scribd.com/doc/33094675/BREVE-JUICIO-SUMARIO-AL-JUDEO-CRISTIANISMO-EN-DEFENSA-DE-LAS-RAICES-CRISTIANAS-DE-EUROPA-LAICA
 
Pete_Holter said:
In the previous citation, the fact of original sin is founded by Augustine on the Holy Scriptures themselves; but the fact that original sin “is put away in infants by the laver of regeneration” is not rested by Augustine upon the authority of the Scriptures, but upon the “antiquity and authority of the catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the Church.” The two-fold teaching is “true, best founded, and best known,” and whatever “is contrary to this, cannot be true.” Augustine says that whoever opposes this teaching “must either be corrected or avoided,” indicating thereby that this is a question of heresy, and one for which Augustine did not feel compelled to appeal to the Scriptures in order to answer definitively, the authority of the Church alone sufficing. This is a perfect example of the types of situations he had in mind when he said that “the practice of the Church of God is the rule of our practice” (Letter 87). But this example goes beyond mere practice, and tells us something that Christians were bound to believe, for the one “who does not believe” that infants are delivered from condemnation by the sacrament of baptism “is assuredly an unbeliever” (Letter 98). “Whence they are compelled to class baptized infants in the number of believers, and to assent to the authority of the Holy Universal Church, which does not account those unworthy of the name of believers” (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Bk. 3, Ch. 2:2). So Calvin is not right to give the impression that Augustine stands with him in holding that such practices of the early Church had “nothing to do with the doctrine of faith, (as to it we cannot extract one iota from them,) but only with external rites subservient to decency or discipline.” Augustine does indeed argue for this truth from the Scriptures, but his certainty of this truth is derived from the practice of the Church.

I’m sorry for the length, but let me bring forward that familiar passage that explains the relationship that exists between the two inseparable authorities for the Christian, namely, the Scriptures and the Church:

“hould you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ’s betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 1:26); which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, Ch. 5:6).
Click to expand...

I grew up a Protestant but became Catholic when I was 27 y/o because of a Spiritual experience.With my background and my personality, I didn’t believe anything the Catholic Church said unless it was confirmed in the Bible.

I can imagine that a person born into a pious Catholic family may believe the the Bible is Divinely inspired because the Church says it is but I can not imagine an unbeliever accepting that. They wouldn’t accept the authority of the Church.
 
Almagore said:
I grew up a Protestant but became Catholic when I was 27 y/o because of a Spiritual experience. With my background and my personality, I didn’t believe anything the Catholic Church said unless it was confirmed in the Bible.

I can imagine that a person born into a pious Catholic family may believe the the Bible is Divinely inspired because the Church says it is but I can not imagine an unbeliever accepting that. They wouldn’t accept the authority of the Church.
Click to expand...
Hi Almagore!

By “unbeliever,” do you mean a non Catholic Christian, or an atheist? Thanks!

With love in Christ,
Pete
 
I’d like to come back to the definition of venial sin that John Calvin rejected because there was something that I didn’t sufficiently highlight in my contrast of John Calvin’s “Augustine” with the real Augustine:

“They define venial sin to be, desire unaccompanied with deliberate assent, and not remaining long in the heart” (, 2.8.58-59Institutes).

Although I haven’t found the exact words, I am willing to contend that this is an accurate summary of Augustine’s very own thought. Let’s take a closer look at Augustine’s thought on this subject:

“The reason that we who toil in this war as long as human life is a trial on the earth are not without sin is not that that thing called sin works in our members in this way, warring against the law of the mind, even though we do not consent to unlawful acts (for as much as pertains to us, we would always be without sin until this evil is healed if we never consented to evil); but that wherever we are overcome by the rebellious element, even though not mortally but only venially, we are nevertheless overcome, and herein we contract something, whence we daily say: ‘Forgive us our trespasses.’ For instance — husband and wife when for the sake of pleasure alone they exceed the limit necessary for procreation; or celibates when they linger with some delight in such thoughts, not indeed deciding to commit crime, but not turning away the intention of the mind as they should in order that they do not fall into sin, or not tearing it away if it falls” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 10:33Against Julian).

“Because he was unwilling to covet, and yet did covet, and for all that did not by any means obey this concupiscence so as to yield assent to it, he immediately adds these words: ‘Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me’ ” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 27:30On Marriage and Concupiscence).

“That man, therefore, alone speaks the truth when he says, It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me, who only feels the concupiscence, and neither resolves on doing it with the consent of his heart, nor accomplishes it with the ministry of his body” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 28:31On Marriage and Concupiscence).

“In this so great conflict, wherein man under Grace lives, and when, being aided, he fights well, rejoices in the Lord with trembling, there yet are not wanting even to valiant warriors, and mortifiers however unconquered of the works of the flesh, some wounds of sins, for the healing of which they may say daily, ‘Forgive us our debts’: against the same vices, and against the devil the prince and king of vices, striving with much greater watchfulness and keenness by the very prayer, that his deadly suggestions avail not aught, whereby he further urges the sinner to excuse rather than accuse his own sins; and thus those wounds not only be not healed, but also, although they were not deadly, yet may be pressed home to grievous and fatal harm” (, 13On Continence).

“In this state of war there are lessened daily in such as make progress, not sins only, but the very lusts also, with which, by not consenting, we strive, and by consenting unto which we sin” (, 20On Continence).

Augustine speaks of “the motions themselves” which are “still living in a certain intrusion of their own, without the consent of our mind, without the action of the members of the body”…

“And how are they mortified by the work of continence, save when we consent not to them with the mind, nor are the members of the body yielded to them as weapons; and, what is greater, and to be looked to with yet greater watchfulness of continence, our very thought itself, although in a certain way it be touched by their suggestion, and as it were, whisper, yet turns away from these, that it receive not delight from them, and turns to more delightful thoughts of things above” (, 29On Continence).

“For as reason, though subjected to God, is yet ‘pressed down by the corruptible body,’ so long as it is in this mortal condition, it has not perfect authority over vice, and therefore this prayer is needed by the righteous. For though it exercises authority, the vices do not submit without a struggle. For however well one maintains the conflict, and however thoroughly he has subdued these enemies, there steals in some evil thing, which, if it does not find ready expression in act, slips out by the lips, or insinuates itself into the thought; and therefore his peace is not full so long as he is at war with his vices” (, Bk. 19, Ch. 27The City of God).
 
Augustine brings forward Cyprian as a witness of one who struggled victoriously against the various mortal sins that Christians face, and yet as one who also “did not escape the stroke of all hostile weapons,” being venially overcome by concupiscence:

“Yet, far be it from us to think St. Cyprian was a miser because he struggled with avarice, or immodest because he struggled with immodesty, or wrathful because he struggled with anger, or ambitious because he struggled with ambition, or carnal because he struggled with the sins of flesh, or a lover of this world because he struggled with worldly enticements, or lustful because he struggled with lust, or proud because he struggled with pride, or a drunkard because he struggled with intemperance, or envious because he struggled against envy. Actually, he was none of these things, precisely because he stoutly resisted these evil impulses coming partly from our origin and partly from habit, and did not consent to be what they tried to force him to be. Yet, in so dangerous and laborious a contest as this he did not escape the stroke of all hostile weapons… O most famous teacher and glorious witness, so you have taught, so you have advised, so have given yourself to be heard and imitated! Deservedly, when all other struggles with desire were ended and all wounds healed, you fought against the last and greatest of all desires of this life, for the truth of Christ, and you conquered by the abundance of His grace toward you. Your crown is secure, your doctrine is victorious, in which you also conquer those who trust in their own strength” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 8:25Against Julian).

In summary, Augustine held that venial sin takes place when desire rises out of concupiscence and a conflict ensues, which conflict, if left unchecked by a constant vigilance, would lead to mortal sin. When Augustine talks about the intrusion or insinuation of concupiscence, and of our thought being touched by its motions, and of something stealing in and of our contracting something thereby in our struggle against unlawful acts, he is propounding in substance the very definition that John Calvin rejected. For Calvin to deceptively bring in Augustine as a witness against what is clearly derived from his very own thought in order to criticize the Catholic Church…

For more on Augustine’s teaching on concupiscence, see Augustine on Concupiscence: Part 1 and Augustine on Concupiscence: Part 2.

The thread that I linked to with Augustine’s view on Scripture was taken down. I’ll reproduce those posts with additional material here on this thread when I get around to it. 🙂

With love in Christ,
Pete Holter

Help John Bugay
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top