The Protestant hijacking of St. Augustine

  • Thread starter Thread starter FatBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Palladio said:
The phrase is, to begin with, Latin: nothing of the sort exists in the Greek NT, which does not and could not support such a patent absurdity as sola scriptura.

Christ enjoins us to many difficult things, but never to a method of reading that does not work.

We celebrated the Assumption on Wednesday. We know it does not appear in the NT, thanks.

But your question is silly, and argues my point for me: because we believe in one true holy and apostolic church, we trust to a magisterium to weigh theology as it develops, and we have no worship of the Bible. (What does Peter Gomes call it? Bibolotry?)

For example, the RCC rejected Henry VIII (no theologian, but still the founder of the C of E) Luther and the lot of them because they were wrong.

God bless.
Click to expand...
My point was the doctrine of the assumption can’t be traced back even to Nicaea, much less the apostles.
 
Calvinator said:
My point was the doctrine of the assumption can’t be traced back even to Nicaea, much less the apostles.
Click to expand...
Neither can any Church but the Catholic Church. The Assumption was believed at least 1,000 years before protestanism was created
 
estesbob said:
Neither can any Church but the Catholic Church. The Assumption was believed at least 1,000 years before protestanism was created
Click to expand...
Okay, but that doesn’t get the doctrine back to the apostles…does it?

catholicism apparently can’t define what traditions Paul was writing about in 2Thess2:15.

Anyway, I don’t know of anything used by either side, concerning Augustine, that is taken out of context.

So, can anyone put something out there?
 
Calvinator said:
estesbob;2600841:
Better to be shackled to sola scriptura than the many traditions you are bound to.

BTW, even your church admits that the scriptures are materially sufficient, does it not? So I guess the link you posted must be to something like biblegateway.com?
Click to expand...
Is suffficient when viewed as expressed by the Church. Hint-you dont have to figure it out all by yourself.
Now that everyone has been nasty with each other, maybe someone can post something from Augustine that they feel has been taken out of context.
Click to expand...
I am wating for someone to show how he was anything but 100% Catholic.
Click to expand...
 
Is anyone else having issues with the quote function?

Unless Bob edits the post above this one, it appears he is arguing for sola scriptura, but we know that can’t be.
 
estesbob said:
Is suffficient when viewed as expressed by the Church. Hint-you dont have to figure it out all by yourself.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s what your church teaches. I’m pretty sure that the current trend in Rome is for materially sufficiency of the scriptures.

You seem to be saying that they, the scriptures, are not materially sufficient, ie. you just can’t understand anything without our supposed infallible magesterium. Of course, how many verses of scripture has your church infallibly ruled on…less than a dozen?
 
Calvinator said:
Okay, but that doesn’t get the doctrine back to the apostles…does it?

catholicism apparently can’t define what traditions Paul was writing about in 2Thess2:15.

Anyway, I don’t know of anything used by either side, concerning Augustine, that is taken out of context.

So, can anyone put something out there?
Click to expand...
How about St. Augustine dismissing Pelagianism? Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism is basically works based salvation. The Catholic Church declared this a heresy a long time ago along with St. Augustine. Do Protestants realize this?
 
FatBoy said:
How about St. Augustine dismissing Pelagianism? Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism is basically works based salvation. The Catholic Church declared this a heresy a long time ago along with St. Augustine. Do Protestants realize this?
Click to expand...
Some do, some don’t. Same question could be asked about Catholics.

Some may argue that at Trent you guys abandoned Augustines teachings as well as the council of Orange.
 
Calvinator said:
Some do, some don’t. Same question could be asked about Catholics.

Some may argue that at Trent you guys abandoned Augustines teachings as well as the council of Orange.
Click to expand...
So do you concede that the CC **does not **teach works based salvation?
 
FatBoy said:
So do you concede that the CC **does not **teach works based salvation?
Click to expand...
I don’t like that term “works based salvation” because how it is abused by people who have never read Trent but yes, I definitely think your church teaches a works based salvation. Read the decrees on justification in Trent.
 
Calvinator said:
I don’t like that term “works based salvation” because how it is abused by people who have never read Trent but yes, I definitely think your church teaches a works based salvation. Read the decrees on justification in Trent.
Click to expand...
You fail to understand the CC’s teachings.
 
Calvinator said:
Anyway, I don’t know of anything used by either side, concerning Augustine, that is taken out of context.

So, can anyone put something out there?
Click to expand...
I would respectfully like to turn this question around. Why do Protestants think Augustine was a symbolist?:confused:
 
Calvinator said:
Symbolist concerning what?
Click to expand...
Concerning the Eucharist. Let me correct my “faulty logic”. Have you read the CCC, Salvation Controversy by James Akin, or listened to *Answering Common Objections *by Dr. Scott Hahn? You really should if you have not already.
 
FatBoy said:
Concerning the Eucharist. Let me correct my “faulty logic”. Have you read the CCC, Salvation Controversy by James Akin, or listened to *Answering Common Objections *by Dr. Scott Hahn? You really should if you have not already.
Click to expand...
CCC…yes.

The trilogy by Sungenis…yes.

Council of Trent…yes.

Ott’s Fundamental’s of Catholic Dogma…as a reference.

Scott Hahn…nothing interests me.

Aiken…nothing interests me.

Steve Ray’s work on the papacy…yes.

So, yes…I understand your church, I just don’t accept it’s claims.
 
Nella said:
Ah, just the same way Catholics view St. Thomas Aquinas. They only wish to view what his early years were but you never hear Catholics talk about the vision Aquinas had later in his later years when afterwards he said that all of his writings “were but straw”.
Click to expand...
That’s completely false. I hear Catholics talk about it all the time. And of course Aquinas’s writings were straw compared to the reality of God. Any human being who didn’t say that about their theological writings would be a blasphemous fool. (Karl Barth supposedly had a vision of himself trundling up to heaven pushing his voluminous writings in a wheelbarrow, and all the angels were laughing at him–but I’m not sure that was an actual vision rather than a wry bit of self-deprecation.) Malcolm Muggeridge once said (shocking William Buckley terribly) that Bach would now doubt agree from his present vantage point that his B Minor Mass, compared to the reality it was expressing, was “the most ridiculously inadequate piece of music ever written.” I think Muggeridge was exactly right, but that doesn’t change the fact that either the Summa Theologiae or the B Minor Mass is worth all the achievements of several thousand of the rest of us.

This I think is the actual difference between the way Catholics talk about St. Thomas’s vision and the way some (not all) Protestants do. Many Protestants–my grandmother for instance–think systematic theology is a waste of time, and they latch onto this story to prove it. But that isn’t the point, and Catholics know that. Therefore they certainly don’t use the story in the way many Protestants do, and that may be what you are talking about.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top