Augustine's view on Predestination and Free will

[CHESTERTONRULES]

In the same work Augustine goes on to say:

Augustine says that God changes man’s will from bad to good. He turns man’s will whatever way He wishes, some to bestow kindness and others to heap punishment.

God does this when man asks for his help.

God wants to help all men, and he will if they but ask.

God will not withhold his grace from any of his children.

*so that the man who wills but is not able knows that he does not yet fully will, and prays that he may have so great a will that it may suffice for keeping the commandments. And thus, indeed, he receives assistance to perform what he is commanded. *

 

[raumzeitmc2]

the bible does not preach guaranteed salvation & neither did Calvin. You can misrepresent his doctrines all you want …

Then please, just show me, clearly and unambiguously, exactly where Calvin teaches salvation can be lost.

you mean because you don’t know the answer?

The short answer: Christ continues his passion in his Mystical Body, the Church. It’s called redemptive suffering. Listen again to St. Paul:

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church.” Colossians, 1:24.

You preach peace and love out of one side of your mouth & call other Christians heretics out of the other.

Doesn’t make sense! One can love and still correct others errors. But maybe life would be a better under the godless Marxist’s? How many tens of millions of innocent souls have suffered and been put to death under those fiends? ?

and in fact it [polygamy] is not barred by scripture (only pastors were limited to one wife).

Cool! Guess everyone’s free to go "wallowing in lust with Luther now! LOL!

Of course, one wonders why this, like so many of his other sayings, has been so long ***hidden and suppressed *** by Protestants. Certainly, so great and noble a sentiment ought to have been shouted from the rooftops!

But I suspect the clean of heart will much prefer the words of St. Basil:

“On polygamy the Fathers are silent, as being*** brutish and altogether inhuman.*** The sin seems to me worse than fornication.”

You obviously know little of the history of the reformation, beyond the propaganda you’re fed by your church. It’s pretty easy to dig up short quotes made by Luther & use it against him … when you read the paragraph, and entire essay or book, then the context becomes clear.

Oh, it becomes clear alright!! Listen my dear friend, it is you who has been propagandized. Believe me, I know my history.

But read, for example, what Fr. Mersch says about the Donatist’s here. Their behavior was as vile as that of the Reformers and their followers, something I’ll be happy to document if you like!

and how exactly does repentance equate with penance?

Read the Catholic encyclopedia article on Penance.
newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Paul was discussing his personal experiences, he wasn’t enumerating a doctrine that required some sort of penance for sins. Penance is punishment; and the idea has always been that man is incapable of atoning for our own sins. Anyway …

Read him again:

“But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” 1 Cor. 9:27

What then is the point of chastising the body in your view?

It’s no wonder you didn’t actually pull the verse, since the word it uses translates to prophesy. Man … you’re embarrassing yourself.

Explain?

more of that peace and love huh? Kill the heretics … burn them alive … urrrr. Insanity!

Huh? Who said anything about killing heretics???

unfortunately that’s exactly what the bible states

Let’s compare and contrast Calvin with St. John Chrysostom:

First Calvin:

Man is “wicked, distorted, foul, impure, and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.”

Now Chrysostom:

[Christ’s] blood causes the image of our King to be fresh within us, produces beauty unspeakable, permits not the nobleness of our souls to waste away, watering it continually, and nourishing it … For wherever they see the Lord’s blood, devils flee, and Angels run together. This blood poured forth washed clean all the world; many wise sayings did the blessed Paul utter concerning it in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This blood cleansed the secret place, and the Holy of Holies. And if the type of it had such great power in the temple of the Hebrews, and in the midst of Egypt, when smeared on the door-posts, much more the reality. This blood sanctified the golden altar; without it the high priest dared not enter into the secret place. This blood consecrated priests, this in types cleansed sins.

But if it had such power in the types, if death so shuddered at the shadow, tell me how would it not have dreaded the very reality?

This blood is the salvation of our souls, by this the soul is washed, by this is beautiful, by this is inflamed, this causes our understanding to be more bright than fire, and our soul more beaming than gold; this blood was poured forth, and made heaven accessible.

Awful in truth are the Mysteries of the Church, awful in truth is the Altar…

This blood was ever typified of old in the altars and sacrifices of righteous men … They who share this blood stand with Angels and Archangels and the Powers that are above, clothed in Christ’s own kingly robe, and having the armor of the Spirit. Nay, I have not as yet said any great thing: they are clothed with the King Himself.

Homily 46 on the Gospel of John.
newadvent.org/fathers/240146.htm

yeah yeah … your church is right and everyone else is wrong. Gee I never heard that one before?

Don’t suppose you’d care to point out the true Church?!

I have to admit … bigotry really upsets me (when I hear such hatred I can’t help but to challenge it, even if in defense of a religion [or denomination] I think is utterly false).

Where’s the hate?? Where’s the bigotry??

“Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Gal. 4:16

When the good people remain silent, the ignorant and unstable take over.

Man, you can say that again! LOL!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Then please, just show me, clearly and unambiguously, exactly where Calvin teaches salvation can be lost.

I’m starting to see the problem is … you don’t have the requisite background in logic to understand what I’m saying about Calvin. He would not say salvation could be lost. What he would say is that if someone didn’t endure to the end they were never saved to begin with.

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us (1 John 2:19).

The short answer: Christ continues his passion in his Mystical Body, the Church. It’s called redemptive suffering. Listen again to St. Paul:

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church.” Colossians, 1:24.

I guess I’m compelled to ask you, have you ever read the entire chapter of Col. 1 or 1 Cor. 9? Paul was talking about his struggles to spread the word. To the Jew he will become a Jew, to those under the law I will become as those under the law . . . therefore I run in such a way as not without aim, I box in such a way as not beating the air; but I discipline my body.

Paul was using a sports analogy to show his work. He was explaining that although he should be provided for by his disciples and congregation he refuses all of it (it’s his one boast as he frames it). He does it all to spread the gospel.

This has no relation to the idea of penance. My friend, seriously (and I don’t say this because I dislike you … because I don’t) leave the advanced theology to your priests, or take the time to study and learn your religion (because man you’re not making any sense, or you’re just cherry picking verses & spinning them out of context).

Doesn’t make sense! One can love and still correct others errors. But maybe life would be a better under the godless Marxist’s? How many tens of millions of innocent souls have suffered and been put to death under those fiends? ?

shall I have a competition with you and drum up all the tyrannical Christians in history? Or will you simply acknowledge that not all atheists are Marxists?

Of course, one wonders why this, like so many of his other sayings, has been so long ***hidden and suppressed *** by Protestants. Certainly, so great and noble a sentiment ought to have been shouted from the rooftops!

But I suspect the clean of heart will much prefer the words of St. Basil:

“On polygamy the Fathers are silent, as being*** brutish and altogether inhuman.*** The sin seems to me worse than fornication.”

I guess you’re more interested in your competition with protestants than talking about whether god is real or not. OK … well Luther did only have one wife did he not? So I’m really not sure what the heck you’re talking about?

Oh, it becomes clear alright!! Listen my dear friend, it is you who has been propagandized. Believe me, I know my history.

sorry … I don’t believe you.

“But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” 1 Cor. 9:27

What then is the point of chastising the body in your view?

why don’t you refer to what I wrote above, and then read 1 Corinthians 9 … and tell me what you’ve learned.

Let’s compare and contrast Calvin with St. John Chrysostom:

First Calvin:

Now Chrysostom:

Homily 46 on the Gospel of John.
newadvent.org/fathers/240146.htm

I guess you missed this one:

The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession …

Try reading St. John Chrysostom’s homilies against the Jews sometime

Don’t suppose you’d care to point out the true Church?!

the church of logic … it’s between your ears if you exercise it enough

Where’s the hate?? Where’s the bigotry??

“Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Gal. 4:16

oh golly …

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I’m starting to see the problem is … you don’t have the requisite background in logic to understand what I’m saying about Calvin. He would not say salvation could be lost. What he would say is that if someone didn’t endure to the end they were never saved to begin with.

But, as no one can know for sure whether or not he will endure to the end, no one may, at any time therefore, say of himself, “I am saved.”

Now three questions:

a. Did Calvin, at anytime, think he himself was “saved?”
b. What authority did Calvin have to teach or correct anyone?
c. Would Philip of Hesse have been “saved” according to the Calvin’s teachings?

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us (1 John 2:19).

But since the Calvinists, as well as the rest of the reformers, like the African Donatists of Augustine’s day, severed themselves from the unity of the whole Church, I would submit that, if this passage applies to anyone, it certainly applies to them!

I’ll respond to the rest of your comments a bit later.

---

“All heresies and schisms have sprung from a disregard for the one Priest and Judge, to whom Christ has delegated His power. For if, in compliance with the intentions of our Lord, every member of the Christian Community yielded a docile obedience to the representative of God, the unity of the Church would never be rent.”

“Nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos et ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur cui si secundum magisteria divina obtemperaret frater nitas universa nemo Ecclesiam scinderet.”

St. Cyprian to Pope Cornelius.

CYPRIANUS, Epistula ad Cornelium [XLV 4]: CCL 3B, 221-223; cf.PL 3, 730.

The Faith of Catholics, (3 vols.), Joseph Berington, John Kirk, James Waterworth, Thomas John Capel, 1885,vol. 1, pp. 34-35 .

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But, as no one can know for sure whether or not he will endure to the end, no one may, at any time therefore, say of himself, “I am saved.”

Now three questions:

a. Did Calvin, at anytime, think he himself was “saved?”
b. What authority did Calvin have to teach or correct anyone?
c. Would Philip of Hesse have been “saved” according to the Calvin’s teachings?

Question C is trying to bait me into a Catholic Protestant debate, and I’m not biting (I can see you apparently enjoy wasting your time bickering with other Christians, but I’m not Christian & frankly I think quibbling about such things is nonsense).

You ask what authority did Calvin have … of course in your view if one is not a member of your church then they lack any authority. In my opinion that’s a slave mentality. I’m not a Christian, but I do know how to read. I am my own authority on matters of reading comprehension and common sense. I guess that probably sounds arrogant to you… how dare I not be enslaved to a church institution. How dare I not think I’m too stupid to read and understand a simple book?

If you think humans cannot be permitted to interpret a simple book themselves then that’s your problem … not mine (nor do I wish to quibble with you about the merits of my view, you think I’m a heretic and I don’t think much of your intellect … so again there we stand).

“All heresies and schisms have sprung from a disregard for the one Priest and Judge, to whom Christ has delegated His power. For if, in compliance with the intentions of our Lord, every member of the Christian Community yielded a docile obedience to the representative of God, the unity of the Church would never be rent.”

“Nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos et ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur cui si secundum magisteria divina obtemperaret frater nitas universa nemo Ecclesiam scinderet.”

St. Cyprian to Pope Cornelius.

CYPRIANUS, Epistula ad Cornelium [XLV 4]: CCL 3B, 221-223; cf.PL 3, 730.

The Faith of Catholics, (3 vols.), Joseph Berington, John Kirk, James Waterworth, Thomas John Capel, 1885,vol. 1, pp. 34-35 .

ooo here we go with the heresy word. Gee wiz … what foolishness.

 

[Camron]

God does this when man asks for his help.

God moves us to ask for His help via the Holy Spirit.

God wants to help all men, and he will if they but ask.

God moves us to ask for His help via the Holy Spirit.

God will not withhold his grace from any of his children.

True, but God moves us to ask for His help via the Holy Spirit in the first place.

It’s kind of like an inversed variation of John F. Kennedy’s famous quote…

…ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

…

Ask not what God can do for you - ask what you can allow God to do through your body.
Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury,pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen

God is doing it through us by the motion of the Holy Spirit. We can’t do this on our own, not even ask for His help, unless we are open to the motion of the Holy Spirit.

*so that the man who wills but is not able knows that he does not yet fully will, and prays that he may have so great a will that it may suffice for keeping the commandments. And thus, indeed, he receives assistance to perform what he is commanded. *

But he can’t will to do good unless God moves him by the Holy Spirit to do so. He can’t know good unless God moves him by the Holy Spirit to do so. He can’t pray to God unless God moves him by the Holy Spirit to do so. And he can’t act upon the assistance he receives to perform what he is commanded unless God moves him by the Holy Spirit to do so either.

I don’t think this can be made any clearer. God is doing the good work through us.

 

[Camron]

At any rate … I’m not going to step in the shoes of a protestant and argue with you about who was more right in interpreting a fairy tale. My feeling is … who cares?

That’s a cop out.

You stepped boldly into this thread and made some absurd claims that Augustine and Calvin taught nearly identical things on certain key points. But you have been shown by many here, including myself, that you are incorrect in many of your points.

Now you’re saying that you don’t care?

If that’s the case, then you shouldn’t really be arguing about this in the first place, since it really doesn’t matter to you.

It’s all a fairy tale right?

If that’s the case, then you should step out of this thread reagarding Augustine’s view on Predestination and Free will and go join the fairy tale threads. You may have better luck with those threads.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

That’s a cop out.

You stepped boldly into this thread and made some absurd claims that Augustine and Calvin taught nearly identical things on certain key points. But you have been shown by many here, including myself, that you are incorrect in many of your points.

Now you’re saying that you don’t care?

If that’s the case, then you shouldn’t really be arguing about this in the first place, since it really doesn’t matter to you.

It’s all a fairy tale right?

If that’s the case, then you should step out of this thread reagarding Augustine’s view on Predestination and Free will and go join the fairy tale threads. You may have better luck with those threads.

oh gee wiz … you have no clue what I was referring to. Your zealous counterpart asked me where Calvin derived his authority from (which is wholly unrelated to the soundness of his theology). That it neither relevant to the OP issue, nor is anything except a red herring. I merely declined to drive down that road with him, since I have no inclination to fight over church authority (which will inevitably drive the discussion towards matters such as apostolic succession and the like, which again are wholly unrelated to the instant issue). As far as my opinions on Augustine and Calvin, I stand by my assertions made throughout this thread. If you can prove them wrong then do so & good luck!

 

[Camron]

oh gee wiz … you have no clue what I was referring to. Your zealous counterpart asked me where Calvin derived his authority from (which is wholly unrelated to the soundness of his theology). That it neither relevant to the OP issue, nor is anything except a red herring.

Actually, it’s highly relevant to the topic at hand, since Calvin had grossly misinterpreted Augustine’s thoughts on certain key matters. It comes full circle to exactly who has the proper authority to interpret the Bible and indeed the Early Father. You have even stated so above, and yet you say that you no interest in going in this direction.

I find it incredibly naive to think that one could actually believe that they would be able to debate this topic without eventually coming to this point. Again, you’re copping out.

I merely declined to drive down that road with him, since I have no inclination to fight over church authority (which will inevitably drive the discussion towards matters such as apostolic succession and the like, which again are wholly unrelated to the instant issue).

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I gotcha.

As far as my opinions on Augustine and Calvin, I stand by my assertions made throughout this thread. If you can prove them wrong then do so & good luck!

I think we’ve already done that. If you can prove our counter points wrong then do so & good luck!

By the way, when someone is copping out, it’s usually not a good debating tactic to demand others to prove their main points to be incorrect.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Actually, it’s highly relevant to the topic at hand, since Calvin had grossly misinterpreted Augustine’s thoughts on certain key matters. It comes full circle to exactly who has the proper authority to interpret the Bible and indeed the Early Father. You have even stated so above, and yet you say that you no interest in going in this direction.

I find it incredibly naive to think that one could actually believe that they would be able to debate this topic without eventually coming to this point. Again, you’re copping out.

it’s only naive from the Catholic standpoint (a group with a billion adherents who believe they are unable to comprehend the meaning of a simple medium lengthed book). For the rest of us it’s perfectly understandable that many people wouldn’t be willing to trust the interpretations of a self-interested organization concerning their deeply held beliefs.

As for the atheist, we can approach this question from the standpoint of reality. There is no divine force upholding the virtue or doctrines of any church. Every church and its doctrines are merely a reflection of the men (and more rarely women) who built it and sustain it … nothing more nothing less. Therefore, on that basis I can compare Calvin to other Christian writers, such as Aquinas, Wesley, and so on, in a forensic unbiased way Comparitively I would almost always side with Calvin in terms of explaining what the bible means.

I admit for me this is mere psychologal assent with the theological views of a man I have little in common with. Since I always doubted the existence of god, and never really had what can be termed as faith, for me this exercise holds little true value.

As evidence of the insincerity of most of the Catholics I’ve ran into on this board, few have been willing to engage me on the question of my personal faith. Rather, most of you are more interested in your quarls with protestants (talk about missing the point). If religion is merely a way to appease your natural desire to fight and quarl with others, might I suggest a good shrink rather than a priest.

I think we’ve already done that. If you can prove our counter points wrong then do so & good luck!

you haven’t said anything of any value, you’ve presented no case, you’ve merely said I’m wrong without saying why? I’ve laid out my case in depth … you can respond to it or not I really don’t care. If a school ground fight is what you’re looking for I seriously have much better things to occupy my time with.

By the way, when someone is copping out, it’s usually not a good debating tactic to demand others to prove their main points to be incorrect.

ahhh … the apex of American intelligence. Talking snakes, apparitions on the tree in your yard, and yet you actually believe yourself capable of explaining to me the art of debate

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Question C is trying to bait me into a Catholic Protestant debate, and I’m not biting

Must not be hungry, then! But seriously, I’m not at all trying to bait; I’m just simply curious as to whether or not a Calvinist would believe Philip of Hesse was saved or not. Since presumably, you are well versed in Calvin’s teachings, I sort of assumed (silly me!) that you might be willing and able to give a ready answer. No need to debate anything.

You ask what authority did Calvin have … of course in your view if one is not a member of your church then they lack any authority. In my opinion that’s a slave mentality.

You’re evading a simple and straightforward question: did he have any authority? A simple yes, no, or I don’t know, would suffice.

I’m not a Christian, but I do know how to read. I am my own authority on matters of reading comprehension and common sense.

And how many times have I heard people talk like that! - yet for some strange reason, all these self-professed “authorities” seem to be hopelessly confused, as they each contradict one another!

I guess that probably sounds arrogant to you… how dare I not be enslaved to a church institution. How dare I not think I’m too stupid to read and understand a simple book?

And how many times have I heard people talk like that also! And again, how invariably they all contradict one another! It is precisely that kind of mentality which is “enslaved” - to error - not mine!!

“claiming to be wise, they became fools”

• St. Paul to the Catholic Church in Rome (Rom. 1:22).

If you think humans cannot be permitted to interpret a simple book themselves then that’s your problem.

I never said folks can’t interpret (or misinterpret) the Bible - hardly my place grant or not grant such permission anyway!

So go ahead, my friend, interpret (or misinterpret ) all you please! You have my blessing. Only would you, or somebody - anybody! - be good enough to show me where in the Bible is found a single instance of anyone privately interpreting Scripture?

But now, returning to this business of authority: you might be interested to know that both Luther and Calvin made some extraordinary claims, not only about their own “authority,” but about their own infallibility!

Luther, for example, in his book against Henry VIII - “Antwort deutsch auf König Heinrichs Buch” “German Answer to King Henry’s Book,” 1522 - writes:

“He who teaches otherwise from what I have taught, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell.”

Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämtliche Werke (Dr. Martin Luther’s Collected Works), Erlangen ed. vol. 28, 346.

Luther’s German:

“Wer Anders lehret, denn ich hierin gelchret habe, oder mich darin verdammt, der verdammt Gott und muß ein Kind der Hölle bleiben”

Slightly different German wording:

“kind der hellen bleiben,” literally, “Child of hell remain.”

As it appears in the Wiemar edition of Luther’s German Works:

“verdampt Gott unnd muß eyn kind der hellen” (“condemns God and must be a child of hell”)

D. Martin Luthers Werke; kritische Gesamtausgabe (D. Martin Luthers Works: Critical and Complete Edition), 1902, Weimar, Herman Böhlaus Nachfolger, 10/II, p. 230 (vol. 10, section II, p. 230).

books.google.com/books?id=omYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA230&dq=%22verdampt+Gott+unnd+mu%C3%9F+eyn+kind+der+hellen%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=L8bsSe_mCI3MM8KxjKcB&client=firefox

And not to forget the *master theologian *himself:

Calvin also claimed for himself infallibility, and wrote to Aubeterre (“Lettres franchises,” vol. 1, p. 389, May, 1553):

“Dieu m’a fait la grace de me declarer ce qui est bon et mauvais.”

Rebuilding a Lost Faith: By an American Agnostic, John L. Stoddard ISBN-13: 9780895554109, p. 98.
books.google.com/books?id=VWbW5SqO0goC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=%22Dieu+m%27a+fait+la+grace+de+me+declarer%22&source=bl&ots=vOVW1tKpQ4&sig=25Wf_KA9lZutVRCs-DaZvwKVeSc&hl=en&ei=q7fsSfqxCYW0NJv34e8F&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
archive.org/details/rebuildingalostf001613mbp
Book summary here:
marianland.com/romancatholicbooks/rebuildinglostfaith.html

And again:

Possessing terrific and sinister self-assurance, he compared his own views with absolute truth, and said: “Dieu m’a fait la grace de declarer ce qu’est bon et mauvais” — (God has been gracious enough to reveal unto me good and evil).

The Right to Heresy, Stefan Zweig, Eden Paul, 1936, p. 34.
books.google.com/books?id=lIg_AAAAIAAJ&q=%22ce+qu%E2%80%99est+bon+et+mauvais%22&dq=%22ce+qu%E2%80%99est+bon+et+mauvais%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=YMfsSfCFEYvKNaCcpY4B&pgis=1

Primary source:

*Lettres de Jean Calvin *, Jean Calvin, Jules Bonnet, Librairie de Ch. Meyrueis et Compagnie, Paris, 1854, vol. 1, p. 389.
"Dieu m’a faict la grâce de me déclairer ce qui est bon ou maulvais "

ooo here we go with the heresy word. Gee wiz … what foolishness.

A heretic is simply one who holds an erring opinion. I don’t know why that word seems to evoke such a strong response from you. Unless of course, it’s that you realize that o’l Calvin would have certainly considered me a heretic, and probably caused me to perish by his hands, even as he did poor Servetus!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You’re evading a simple and straightforward question: did he have any authority? A simple yes, no, or I don’t know, would suffice.

What authority do men need to comprehend any writing beyond their own intellect?

Scripture does state that men are not saved because of their personal merit, their desires, efforts, and so on … does it not? What do you think this means? Do you think it merely stands for the proposition that god doesn’t care how bad we were, he’ll save us if we ask? Or doesn’t scripture also enumerate the concept of predestination quite clearly?

The fact is at one point in history the CC believed scripture revealed a sun that rotated around the earth & an earth, which remained stationary (and didn’t rotate on its axis or around the sun, much less anything else).

Where was this authority back then? Back then that was official dogma, yet now they present slick sophistic arguments explaining those type of interpretations do not fall under the umbrella of infallible doctrine. In essence your church changes the rules as it plays the game (coincidentally they change the rules each time they’re proven wrong).

And how many times have I heard people talk like that! - yet for some strange reason, all these self-professed “authorities” seem to be hopelessly confused, as they each contradict one another!

Just as no two Catholic theologians hold the exact same view regarding scriptural interpretation (just contrast the Benedictines with the Jesuits). You see that was a big indicator for me (when I was Catholic) that the church just can’t keep its story straight. That is objective evidence of the falsity of its claims.

“claiming to be wise, they became fools”

• St. Paul to the Catholic Church in Rome (Rom. 1:22).

of course the church Paul was writing to could hardly be called Catholic back then. There was no central governance in Rome (the church in Corinth didn’t look to Rome for doctrinal guidance, as an example). If anything the EOC has a better claim to this apostolic succession than Rome does.

So go ahead, my friend, interpret (or misinterpret ) all you please! You have my blessing. Only would you, or somebody - anybody! - be good enough to show me where in the Bible is found a single instance of anyone privately interpreting Scripture?

all Christians are exhorted to meditate on scripture and are referred to as a “royal priesthood.” So yes there is scriptural support for private interpretation. The CC will probably refute that these very plain passages stand for this proposition, but then of course it only does this to maintain its own grip on power over Christendom.

But now, returning to this business of authority: you might be interested to know that both Luther and Calvin made some extraordinary claims, not only about their own “authority,” but about their own infallibility!

Luther, for example, in his book against Henry VIII - “Antwort deutsch auf König Heinrichs Buch” “German Answer to King Henry’s Book,” 1522 - writes:

“He who teaches otherwise from what I have taught, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell.”

Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämtliche Werke (Dr. Martin Luther’s Collected Works), Erlangen ed. vol. 28, 346.

Luther’s German:

“Wer Anders lehret, denn ich hierin gelchret habe, oder mich darin verdammt, der verdammt Gott und muß ein Kind der Hölle bleiben”

Slightly different German wording:

“kind der hellen bleiben,” literally, “Child of hell remain.”

As it appears in the Wiemar edition of Luther’s German Works:

“verdampt Gott unnd muß eyn kind der hellen” (“condemns God and must be a child of hell”)

D. Martin Luthers Werke; kritische Gesamtausgabe (D. Martin Luthers Works: Critical and Complete Edition), 1902, Weimar, Herman Böhlaus Nachfolger, 10/II, p. 230 (vol. 10, section II, p. 230).

books.google.com/books?id=omYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA230&dq=%22verdampt+Gott+unnd+mu%C3%9F+eyn+kind+der+hellen%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=L8bsSe_mCI3MM8KxjKcB&client=firefox

And not to forget the *master theologian *himself:

Rebuilding a Lost Faith: By an American Agnostic, John L. Stoddard ISBN-13: 9780895554109, p. 98.
books.google.com/books?id=VWbW5SqO0goC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=%22Dieu+m%27a+fait+la+grace+de+me+declarer%22&source=bl&ots=vOVW1tKpQ4&sig=25Wf_KA9lZutVRCs-DaZvwKVeSc&hl=en&ei=q7fsSfqxCYW0NJv34e8F&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
archive.org/details/rebuildingalostf001613mbp
Book summary here:
marianland.com/romancatholicbooks/rebuildinglostfaith.html

And again:

The Right to Heresy, Stefan Zweig, Eden Paul, 1936, p. 34.
books.google.com/books?id=lIg_AAAAIAAJ&q=%22ce+qu%E2%80%99est+bon+et+mauvais%22&dq=%22ce+qu%E2%80%99est+bon+et+mauvais%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=YMfsSfCFEYvKNaCcpY4B&pgis=1

Primary source:

*Lettres de Jean Calvin *, Jean Calvin, Jules Bonnet, Librairie de Ch. Meyrueis et Compagnie, Paris, 1854, vol. 1, p. 389.
"Dieu m’a faict la grâce de me déclairer ce qui est bon ou maulvais "

yes Christianity does seem to make men delusional doesn’t it. Just look at the horrible history of some of your popes. As for Servetus, that affair makes Calvin look no worse than the inquisition, murder of the Huguenots, the crusades (particularly the second and beyond), etc. made your own church look. Indeed, Christianity has a history full of tyranny and oppression …

 

[WarriorAngel]

St Augustine **is greatly mistranslated. **BUT even St Augustine would not argue with the Apostles that those who taste the Holy Spirit and turn away crucify the Lord again.

The irony of anyone outside the Church holding up St Augustine is a ponder.

He oft said within the Church is truth. He often defended the Church could not err - ever.

Here is some more irony from St Augustine…


The worst mistranslations and understandings of St Augustine was thinking he didn’t believe man had free will.

…

CHURCH FATHERS: On Grace and Free WillStAugustine

Written by St. Augustine of Hippo in A.D. 426 or 427
Extract from Augustine’s Retractions (Book II, Chapter 66):

**

**
There are some persons who suppose that the freedom of the will is denied whenever God’s grace is maintained, and who on their side defend their liberty of will so peremptorily as to deny the grace of God. This grace, as they assert, is bestowed according to our own merits. It is in consequence of their opinions that I wrote the book entitled On Grace and Free Will. This
… The work begins with these words: “With reference to those persons who so preach the liberty of the human will.”

With reference to those persons who so preach and defend man’s free will, as boldly to deny, and endeavour to do away with, the grace of God which calls us to Him, and delivers us from our evil deserts, and by which we obtain the good deserts which lead to everlasting life: we have already said a good deal in discussion, and committed it to writing, so far as the Lord has vouchsafed to enable us. But since there are some persons who so defend God’s grace as to deny man’s free will, or who suppose that free will is denied when grace is defended, I have determined to write somewhat on this point to your Love, my brother Valentinus, and the rest of you, who are serving God together under the impulse of a mutual love. …

Now He has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free choice of will. But how He has revealed this I do not recount in human language, but in divine. There is, to begin with, the fact that God’s precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards. For they are given that no one might be able to plead the excuse of ignorance,

**All such excuse is removed from them when the precept is given them, or the knowledge is made manifest to them how to avoid **sin.

etc

 

[humble_in_doubt]

St Augustine **is greatly mistranslated. **BUT even St Augustine would not argue with the Apostles that those who taste the Holy Spirit and turn away crucify the Lord again.

The irony of anyone outside the Church holding up St Augustine is a ponder.

He oft said within the Church is truth. He often defended the Church could not err - ever.

Here is some more irony from St Augustine…


The worst mistranslations and understandings of St Augustine was thinking he didn’t believe man had free will.\

not even Calvin thought we lacked free will … that’s just a misaligned construction of the often misaligned Calvin (poor guy )

 

[Camron]

it’s only naive from the Catholic standpoint (a group with a billion adherents who believe they are unable to comprehend the meaning of a simple medium lengthed book).

I see. That’s actually incorrect by the way. We do believe that we can comprehend the meaning of the Bible, provided the Holy Spirit guides our understanding. However, since humanity is prone to error, the Lord has guaranteed the Church to be error free via those who retain the Apostolic Succession.

It’s perfectly normal to have teachers, experts, and specialists of certain fields of knowledge in the “real world” precisely because there are people who do not know and need to learn things.

We are human beings.

Why would you expect the Church to be any different?

For the rest of us it’s perfectly understandable that many people wouldn’t be willing to trust the interpretations of a self-interested organization concerning their deeply held beliefs.

Uh,the Catholic Church does more for humanitarian aid and efforts than many large humanitarian organizations. You are truly just slandering the Church now.

And this has nothing to do with Augustine’s view on Predestination and Free will either.

As for the atheist, we can approach this question from the standpoint of reality

.

Correction: You believe the atheist can approach this question from the standpoint of reality. But you have no guarantee that your understanding of reality is infallible. And you certainly do not “know” there is no God either. You believe there is no God.

Again, this has nothing to do with Augustine’s view on Predestination and Free will.

You need to keep on topic.

There is no divine force upholding the virtue or doctrines of any church.

Correction: You believe there is no divine force upholding the virtue or doctrines of any church.

Every church and its doctrines are merely a reflection of the men (and more rarely women) who built it and sustain it … nothing more nothing less.

Correction: You believe every church and its doctrines are merely a reflection of the men (and more rarely women) who built it and sustain it … nothing more nothing less

Therefore, on that basis I can compare Calvin to other Christian writers, such as Aquinas, Wesley, and so on, in a forensic unbiased way Comparitively I would almost always side with Calvin in terms of explaining what the bible means.

But you are not unbiased. You are former Calvinist who is now an atheist.

Do you honestly believe that your world views and religious experience to not affect how you interpret the Bible?

I admit for me this is mere psychologal assent with the theological views of a man I have little in common with. Since I always doubted the existence of god, and never really had what can be termed as faith, for me this exercise holds little true value.

Then why are you expending so much energy debating this topic?

Wait for it…wait for it…

As evidence of the insincerity of most of the Catholics I’ve ran into on this board, few have been willing to engage me on the question of my personal faith.

We are doing that right now. Your faith is atheistic Calvinism. And I personally think your fall into atheism has been greatly influenced by Calvin’s incorrect interpretations of Augustine’s thoughts. Ergo: If you understand Augustine’s thoughts without Calvin’s incorrect bias, I think you would be well on your way to faith in God again. Therefore, we are trying to get you to understand what was incorrect about Calvin’s’ thoughts so that you may understand Augustine’s thoughts more clearly.

I don’t think I can make this much clearer.

Rather, most of you are more interested in your quarls with protestants (talk about missing the point). If religion is merely a way to appease your natural desire to fight and quarl with others, might I suggest a good shrink rather than a priest.

Talk about missing the point.

Again, what does this have to do with Augustine’s view on Predestination and Free will?

Actually, much of your posts is, in my opinion, crossing over into personal attack territory. This is not for me to decide. But as for why we are more interested correcting certain Protestant errors, this has been explained to you above.

you haven’t said anything of any value, you’ve presented no case, you’ve merely said I’m wrong without saying why? I’ve laid out my case in depth … you can respond to it or not I really don’t care. If a school ground fight is what you’re looking for I seriously have much better things to occupy my time with.

I’m not looking for a school fight. I’m looking to defend Catholic doctrines and lead you away from the errors of Calvin. As for posts, I’ve already presented a link for you to examine further…

See here.

…So far you have not addressed it yet to my knowledge.

ahhh … the apex of American intelligence.

Actually, I’m Canadian.

Talking snakes, apparitions on the tree in your yard, and yet you actually believe yourself capable of explaining to me the art of debate

Again, what does this have to do with Augustine’s view on Predestination and Free will?

All I am reading here are slanders against people of faith. Your argument appears to be rapidly disintegrating into atheistic gibberish. Actually, it’s even worse than atheistic gibberish. I’m actually reading Calvinistic atheism. Now that is a strange combination.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

It’s perfectly normal to have teachers, experts, and specialists of certain fields of knowledge in the “real world” precisely because there are people who do not know and need to learn things.

For Augustine if man could redeem himself through his own efforts, then at best the atonement of Jesus Christ was a sort of good example. Men, as he would say, are a massa peccati (a mass of sin), and cannot endow themselves with grace.

Let me illustrate in Augustine’s own words:

Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God’s gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God. Whence it is plain that it is a great grace for many to be delivered, and to acknowledge in those that are not delivered what would be due to themselves; so that he that glorieth may glory not in his own merits, which he sees to be equalled in those that are condemned, but in the Lord.

-Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 16

The tension between the typical Catholic and Calvinist is because most Catholics believe Calvin did not teach human freedom or moral agency, or that our will cooperates with grace in any way. In Calvin’s words:

This liberty is compatible with our being depraved, the servants of sin, able to do nothing but sin. In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true: but why should so small a matter have been dignified with so proud a title? An admirable freedom! That man is not forced to be the servant of sin, while he is, however, ethelodoulos (a voluntary slave). Institutes of Christian Religion, 1:228-29 (2.2.6-7)

With regard to irresistible grace:

And if He had willed to teach even those to whom the word of the cross is foolishness to come to Christ beyond all doubt these also would have come.

-Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 14

With regard to monergism:

“If thou believest, thou shalt be saved,” faith is required of us, and salvation is proposed to us as a reward. For these things are both commanded us, and are shown to be God’s gifts, in order that we may understand both that we do them, and that God makes us to do them (this is called compatiblism, a Hallmark of Calvinism) as He most plainly says by the prophet Ezekiel. For what is plainer than when He says, “I will cause you to do”? Give heed to that passage of Scripture, and you will see that God promises that He will make them to do those things which He commands to be done.

-Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 22

On the question of whether foreseen faith precedes foreordination:

Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,-not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe.

-Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 34

Again, this has nothing to do with Augustine’s view on Predestination and Free will.

You need to keep on topic.

It’s funny, you’re counterpart above insisted that I answer his question … where did Calvin derive his authority. Notwithstanding my objection on the grounds that it would veer us too far off topic, your fellow Catholic poster charged me with “copping out” … so I finally engaged him on that issue. Now you come here accusing me of veering off topic.

You guys are too funny?

But you are not unbiased. You are former Calvinist who is now an atheist.

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, was an alter boy (no I never suffered harm at the hands of a priest thankfully), even went to Catholic universities. In short at one time (and for many years) I was a super Catholic; yet upon reading Calvin, studying scripture intensely, and studying Augustine … I wound up agreeing with them.

Do you honestly believe that your world views and religious experience to not affect how you interpret the Bible?

No … not at all. I’ve explained why I don’t believe a few times already (it’s getting a little old but I suppose it’s necessary).

The god of every religion in the world did all these profound, earth altering things thousands of years ago. Yet he’s utterly silent today (and there’s always a profound reason why god is absent from contemporary human history). There hasn’t been any event in modern history that cannot be explained by science, and for good reason.

The ancients didn’t understand the physical universe, much less view it through the prism of science. For them natural disasters must have been some god who was angry at them. Well, today we know why an eclipse or earth quake happens.

Then why are you expending so much energy debating this topic?

At first I was bored (on a business trip), then it was because I enjoy a good debate, now it’s just to get under your skin … Just joking around buddy (don’t get your knickers in a bunch).

Talk about missing the point.

hey … that’s my line?

I’m not looking for a school fight. I’m looking to defend Catholic doctrines and lead you away from the errors of Calvin. As for posts, I’ve already presented a link for you to examine further…

Why would I join any church if I just don’t believe?

All I am reading here are slanders against people of faith.

the unbeliever cannot voice his opinion without offending believers … it’s just impossible (just as you cannot voice you’re opinion without offending me). I, however, have thick skin (let’s face it … I’m the underdog here, and face attacks from all sides, so if I’m not complaining about it then why should anyone else?).

This is a Catholic forum yes … but I think I’m far more charitable then most other non-Catholics here (I’ve seen some pretty good dog fights between you guys and the protestants … like it’s the 15th century or something). BTW you cannot be a Calvinist atheist … that’s just absurd. I’m just a non-believer in your religion, simple.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

For Augustine if man could redeem himself through his own efforts, then at best the atonement of Jesus Christ was a sort of good example. Men, as he would say, are a massa peccati (a mass of sin), and cannot endow themselves with grace.

But who teaches that a man can redeem himself??

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, was an alter boy (no I never suffered harm at the hands of a priest thankfully), even went to Catholic universities. In short at one time (and for many years) I was a super Catholic; yet upon reading Calvin, studying scripture intensely, and studying Augustine … I wound up agreeing with them.

Where do you believe Calvin right, and the Church wrong?

The god of every religion in the world did all these profound, earth altering things thousands of years ago. Yet he’s utterly silent today (and there’s always a profound reason why god is absent from contemporary human history). There hasn’t been any event in modern history that cannot be explained by science, and for good reason.

a. How do know?

b. What about the miracles which Augustine himself recounts occurred in his own day? And how reconcile that with Calvin who taught, “the gift of miracles has ceased?” (To the Protector Somerset, Oct. 22, 1548. Letters of John Calvin, Jules Bonnet, David Constable, Calvin Translation Society, 1857, vol. II, p. 180.

And, fwiw, here is a little story from Padre Pio: The Stigmatist by Charles Mortimer Carty, pp. 244-246.

An intelligent Sicilian teacher, who for several years had been teaching in a lovely neighborhood near Bologna, had heard about Padre Pio, but being a rationalist by principle and a realist through his studies, he did not feel any attraction for Padre Pio, and it seemed to him that all the talk about him was carried on by people mentally ill with mystical ideas.

He did not like him, but to be honest, he did not oppose him. “It may be as you say,” he said, “but in my personal opinion, and that of other recognized teachers, I cannot believe in this being you say has supernatural gifts”

One day, however, he was staying in a house in the vicinity of Father Pio’s village when someone gave him the book “Dal Dubbio all Fede,” - “From Doubt to Faith” - the first book written by Alberto del Fante on Padre Pio.

The evening of the 27th of August, 1940, after having finished the book, he went to sleep thinking about Father Pio. About three in the morning he felt that someone was in the room. Waking up, he saw in from of him a Capuchin monk like Padre Pio as pictured in the book. Rubbing his eyes he thought was dreaming; he felt quite frightened but was not too shaken to turn to the Father and ask him who he was and whether he was by any chance Father Pio. “Yes,” replied the monk, “I am Father Pio. Do not be astonished at my visit, my mission is precisely to console and counsel the afflicted, especially those in spirit. I know that you are frantically seeking happiness and truth, that is God. The first thing you are seeking is not possible for you or anyone on this earth, which is a valley of tears where everybody must carry his cross. Happiness, in fact is not of this world.”

“The second thing, God, you can find, if you want to, but you are on a wrong road, for knowledge is useless except to reveal HIM WHO IS. Science, my son, great as it may be, is but a poor thing, and less than nothing when compared with the formidable mystery of the Divinity. You must take another path. Purify your heart of every human passion, humble yourself to the earth and pray. In this way you will certainly find God, who will give you serenity and peace in this world and eternal beatitude in the next.”

“I HAVE SPOKEN.”

“I must go, because other unhappy people are waiting for me to give them consolation. Before going I bless this house where goodness and virtue are blossoming; whose perfume rises to Eternity and consoles and cheers those who live nearby. MAY JESUS CHRIST BE PRAISED.”

The teacher, as soon as the Father disappeared, got up from his bed, where the Father had been sitting, and wrote down at once what he had said, fearing to forget some of the words, but while writing it seemed to him that is hand was being guided when he was not sure of the exact word.

In the morning he looked up in the Bible and found that the Patriarchs and Prophets use precisely the words HE WHO IS to signify God, a phrase hitherto unknown to him.

Returning to his home and on showing the phrases he had written to del Fante- the writer of the book on Padre Pio- he confirmed the habitual use of the words HO DETTO: (I HAVE SPOKEN) by Father Pio when the penitents try to find a wrong reason for something, and the Father uses it as a form of imperative.

The last words, “MAY JESUS CHRIST BE PRAISED,” are used habitually by every Franciscan at the end of a sermon.

The teacher permitted del Fante to publish this account, but asked him to leave out his name.

 

[Camron]

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, was an alter boy (no I never suffered harm at the hands of a priest thankfully), even went to Catholic universities. In short at one time (and for many years) I was a super Catholic; yet upon reading Calvin, studying scripture intensely, and studying Augustine … I wound up agreeing with them.

And how long after agreeing with Calvin did you lose your faith in God?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But who teaches that a man can redeem himself??

It’s quite hard to tell. If you ask most Catholics they will say they believe in a universal prevenient grace, which is imputed to all people and enables all mankind to seek god. They then posit that god then tosses the ball in our court … and the reason the elect were chosen is because god merely foresaw their decision.

In other words, contrary to how Augustine frames it, Catholics (who have essentially become Arminians, albeit with some nuance) will say they chose god (and even though god chose them, it was because of their decision for god, not god’s preceding decision for them). They will try and synthesize the inconsistency by saying that god’s grace does precede our choice, and they will even erroneously cite Augustine for the proposition that god enables and assists our will (without reading the context he made that statement in, or the rest of his work, which will help any intelligent reader understand without question that Augustine believed in irresistible grace and double predestination).

Where do you believe Calvin right, and the Church wrong?

I think Calvin retained the Augustinian view on predestination and grace, but departed from the church in a way Augustine would never have. Calvin’s break from the RCC was indeed harsh and his views toward your church were equally harsh. While I tend to agree with the general protestant consensus that things like Marian or saintly veneration are probably bad ideas … I don’t agree with Calvin who depicted those practices as heresy.

b. What about the miracles which Augustine himself recounts occurred in his own day? And how reconcile that with Calvin who taught, “the gift of miracles has ceased?” (To the Protector Somerset, Oct. 22, 1548. Letters of John Calvin, Jules Bonnet, David Constable, Calvin Translation Society, 1857, vol. II, p. 180.

And, fwiw, here is a little story from Padre Pio: The Stigmatist by Charles Mortimer Carty, pp. 244-246.

I don’t believe any miracles were, well, miraculous. Ancient men didn’t understand why an earth quake or solar eclipse occurred. They attributed such things to a manifestation of divine power.

We might look at the 67 people in Lourdes, France (who visited the religious shrine there) who were healed & call it a miracle. Yet is it really abnormal when 67 out of hundreds of thousands of people who have visited Lourdes recover from their illnesses?

Even if their recovery cannot be fully explained, isn’t a number like 67 out of several hundred thousand (or perhaps millions) a pretty normal statistic? Of course it is.

Because we can’t explain why these events occur we attribute it to a divine power, like our ancient ancestors did, who attributed things that today we understand (like earth quakes or eclipses) to divine power. The ancients didn’t view the physical world through the prism of science, today we do. Yet we’re left with their mythology (which became too deeply ingrained to simply go away).

I’ve been berated on here, and I guess I expected it. People will tell me of their sick friends who recovered from terminal cancer because of some god (and use those sort of emotive irrational arguments to paint me as a hard hearted tyrant or some nonsense like that). I say psychology and health are strongly interrelated (and this fact is well documented); and these sort of miracle cures occur among the religious and non-religious alike. While we don’t fully understand this medical phenomena, it is merely a medical phenomena (that we will eventually understand, like we eventually learned why earth quakes and eclipses happen).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

And how long after agreeing with Calvin did you lose your faith in God?

I’ve only been a non-believer (or shall we say faith challenged ) for a few years now, but I’ve admired Calvin’s theology for the better part of the last 15 years (even since my first or second year in college).