Baptists and Augustine

[Bulldog]

because it is a true statement

Augustine certainly did have an influence on the West, but would you really say that he held to all the modern Roman Catholic dogmas and beliefs?

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Augustine certainly did have an influence on the West, but would you really say that he held to all the modern Roman Catholic dogmas and beliefs?

Not to Answer for BT but I would say the answer is obviously no if he was a frontrunner to "Calvinism." However at the same time if he is responsible for alot of core beliefs and/or dogmas that the catholic church holds true than I would be apt to say yes. RC's would probably say of course not and attribute it to "Pope" Peter through Christ. I am curious to see if they believe their doctrine/dogma evolved with culture or if they had every view they now hold from the beggining... I dont know the answer to that question.

 

[ZiSunka]

I believe from other discussions here at CF that many catholics would say that every current belief and doctrine can be traced back to the earliest church fathers.

 

[ps139]

Not to Answer for BT but I would say the answer is obviously no if he was a frontrunner to "Calvinism." However at the same time if he is responsible for alot of core beliefs and/or dogmas that the catholic church holds true than I would be apt to say yes. RC's would probably say of course not and attribute it to "Pope" Peter through Christ. I am curious to see if they believe their doctrine/dogma evolved with culture or if they had every view they now hold from the beggining... I dont know the answer to that question.

We acknowledge that Augustine had a major, major influence on the Church, but like any other doctor of the Church, we do not consider him infallible. For instance, he believed in "limbo," but we do not. That is just one example.
As far as the "forerunner to Calvin" thing, obviously we do not see it this way. But just like 2 can read the Scriptures and come away with different ideas, I suppose 2 can read Augustine and come away with different ideas. Following Augustine's ideas in Grace and Free Will and other works, we believe that the elect are predestined to heaven, and we believe in the reality of free will. So, predestination is a "de fide" dogma binding on all Catholics, although how it works is open up to speculation, and there are pretty much 2 schools of thought, "absolute predestination" and "conditional predestination." Augustine held the former position, but not all Catholics are required to.
We believe in a development of doctrine much like a seed develops into a tree. Its appearance changes, but essentially it is the same thing, and its never not itself. This basically means that we believe core beliefs were expanded upon, and explained in greater detail. If you want to understand what we mean by this I can recommend you a good book.

 

[ZiSunka]

We acknowledge that Augustine had a major, major influence on the Church, but like any other doctor of the Church, we do not consider him infallible. For instance, he believed in "limbo," but we do not. That is just one example.

Acutally, according the catholic website New Advent, there are two kinds of limbo that are believed in by catholicism: children's limbo for those who die only with original sin and no sins of their own and what is called limbus patrum or limbo of the fathers, meaning those people who died before Christ came. limbo of the father's is now gone since those people were either redeemed or damned after Christ's first coming.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

 

[aReformedPatriot]

We acknowledge that Augustine had a major, major influence on the Church, but like any other doctor of the Church, we do not consider him infallible. For instance, he believed in "limbo," but we do not. That is just one example.
As far as the "forerunner to Calvin" thing, obviously we do not see it this way. But just like 2 can read the Scriptures and come away with different ideas, I suppose 2 can read Augustine and come away with different ideas. Following Augustine's ideas in Grace and Free Will and other works, we believe that the elect are predestined to heaven, and we believe in the reality of free will. So, predestination is a "de fide" dogma binding on all Catholics, although how it works is open up to speculation, and there are pretty much 2 schools of thought, "absolute predestination" and "conditional predestination." Augustine held the former position, but not all Catholics are required to.
We believe in a development of doctrine much like a seed develops into a tree. Its appearance changes, but essentially it is the same thing, and its never not itself. This basically means that we believe core beliefs were expanded upon, and explained in greater detail. If you want to understand what we mean by this I can recommend you a good book.

If anyone were to respond I am glad that it was you, Bill. Good Lord's Day to you, may the Lord bless you and yours.

One should never hold back a book title if that work is good, so lets have it.

 

[ps139]

If anyone were to respond I am glad that it was you, Bill. Good Lord's Day to you, may the Lord bless you and yours.

Thank you kindly Mark, I wish the same to you .

One should never hold back a book title if that work is good, so lets have it.

It's called "An Essay on the Development of Doctrine" by John Henry Cardinal Newman. Be warned it is a tough read but if you want to know how we think of this, it is the best thing you can find.

 

[ps139]

Acutally, according the catholic website New Advent, there are two kinds of limbo that are believed in by catholicism: children's limbo for those who die only with original sin and no sins of their own and what is called limbus patrum or limbo of the fathers, meaning those people who died before Christ came. limbo of the father's is now gone since those people were either redeemed or damned after Christ's first coming.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Very good lambslove! You are absolutely right.
We still do believe in the limbus patrum, we believe this is what is referred to in the Scriptures when it is said that "Christ preached to the spirits in prison." We believe this is the same place also called "Abraham's bosom" and "paradise" (thief on the cross). And we believe that whereever it is, if it still exists, its empty right now.

But the limbus infantium, (or children's limbo) we do not believe in. Augustine believed in this. In fact he believed that a friend of his, who had died but not yet been baptized into the Church (although he was in the process of converting) went to this limbus infantium as well. I had to read that section three times before I could figure out what Augustine was talking about! LOL.
But yes the limbus infantium is an example of something Augustine believed in that Rome does not.

 

[ZiSunka]

Okay, it is not doctrine per se, but it is a long-standing teaching and tradition, which is the same thing as a doctrine, really. Anything that is practiced and taught is a doctrine, in practical fact.

Limbo is preached at catholic baptisms, because I have witnessed it at actual catholic baptisms. Two years ago when my cousin's baby was baptized, the priest made a big deal out of baptism keeping Jason from entering limbo, because now he was cleansed of original sin. And when my other cousin's baby was in distress three years ago, the priest came in and baptized her so she would not be in limbo if she died.

But I now bow out. I don't want to get reported again for stating how catholicism is actually practiced as opposed to what its doctrine says.

 

[ps139]

Individual opinions, of St. Augustine, or of your cousin's parish priest, are not recognized by Catholics as infallible doctrine. Rome does not profess a positive belief in limbus infantium. Rome is actually silent on the issue, trusting in God's mercy for the unbaptized. And that is a fact.

 

[BT]

Very good lambslove! You are absolutely right.
We still do believe in the limbus patrum, we believe this is what is referred to in the Scriptures when it is said that "Christ preached to the spirits in prison." We believe this is the same place also called "Abraham's bosom" and "paradise" (thief on the cross). And we believe that whereever it is, if it still exists, its empty right now.

We believe in this place too. We just don't call it Limbo. We believe that it still exists (since there is no Biblical evidence that it ceased to exist after it was emptied), and agree that it was emptied by and during those three days in which Christ was dead and no yet resurrected. This is called the "compartmental grave theory" in which the "grave" is divided into different areas which hold different kinds of deceased.. the just and the unjust, the chained angels etc.

But the limbus infantium, (or children's limbo) we do not believe in. Augustine believed in this. In fact he believed that a friend of his, who had died but not yet been baptized into the Church (although he was in the process of converting) went to this limbus infantium as well. I had to read that section three times before I could figure out what Augustine was talking about! LOL.
But yes the limbus infantium is an example of something Augustine believed in that Rome does not.

Yes we don't believe in this either. We believe that children are inoccent until such a time as they can understand and accept the Gospel. This comes from Jewish tradition, and as I stretch back to Catholic school I seem to remember being taught the same thing. I remember them telling us that there was an "age of reason" I think it was around 12. I seem to remember something about using Christ (the child) teaching in the synagogue as a context for the age of reason. I'm not 100% on that. But we do believe that children who pass away are safe and in heaven. We would use different passages of Scripture (naturally) to back this up. Such as the account of the child of David and Bathsheba "He will not return to me, but I will go to him..."

 

[FreeinChrist]

The order is

Aristotle - 384 BC

Augustine - 354 AD

Ol' Johnny Calvin - 1509

Then FYI

Aristotle - 384 BC

Plato - 428 BC

So did either Aristole or Plato believe in the God of Abraham?

 

[Gold Dragon]

So did either Aristole or Plato believe in the God of Abraham?

No they didn't. But their impact on thinking throughout history is undeniable, reaching even into church theology. Some may view that as secular "corruptions".

If anyone who has been influenced by the ideas of Plato and Aristotle are "corrupted", then you would be hard pressed to find any educated Christian who is corruption free since their thinking has pervaded all western and many eastern education systems since the Middle Ages and the entire Greek/Roman philosophy that pervades western thought.

 

[FreeinChrist]

It's a matter of degree one lets the corrupt interfere with what God is saying to us in scripture, is it not?

 

[Gold Dragon]

It's a matter of degree one lets the corrupt interfere with what God is saying to us in scripture, is it not?

Maybe. And maybe some non-Christian ideas are not corrupt and incompatible with what God is saying in scripture.

Thomas Jefferson was a renowned Deist and most Americans are "corrupted" with his ideas expressed in the US Declaration of Independence of which he was the primary author.

Benjamin Franklin was another famous Deist who "corrupted" the thinking of americans with his ideas.

 

[BT]

So did either Aristole or Plato believe in the God of Abraham?

No they did not. It was through their thinking that they invented their own ideas or religions. I'll give you Plato's in a nutshell and hope that you don't end up more confused than when you started.

The world, he taught, consisted of an infinite number of particular things, each of which is a more or less imperfect copy of a real idea. For instance, there are many kinds of chairs, but none of them could be the chair from which all other chairs are derived. The real chair, then, is not the one made of wood, but is the ideal chair of which the wooden one is a copy.
The real world then, is the world of ideas of which the material world is only a shadow. These ideas are organized inot a system, at the head of which is the idea of the Good. Plato never seemed to personalize the idea of the Good, nor did he identify it with the Demiurge, or Creator, who produced the material world. He did regard the ideas as having objective existence; in fact, they were the only real existence, of which the present world is a feeble and garbled reflection.
This concept would inevitably lead to dualism. If the real world is the unseen realm of ideas, and if the changing cosmos in which man lives is only transitory, his quest will be to escape from the unreal to the real. Reflection, meditation, and even asceticism will open the way to deliverance. Knowledge is salvation; sin is ignorance. By seeking the Highest Good, the End, the Supreme Idea, man may liberate himself from the enslaving material world and may rise to a comprehension of the real world.
Platonism was too abstract to gain the attention and thought of the common man. It is not mentioned directly in the New Testament as one of the philosophies that Christianity encountered. Its dualism, however, was reflected by gnosticism, which may have taken its rise in the first century.


Reading all of that again leads me back to the same thought... Can you see the kind of stuff that dudes come up with when they got no TV to watch?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Maybe. And maybe some non-Christian ideas are not corrupt and incompatible with what God is saying in scripture.

Thomas Jefferson was a renowned Deist and most Americans are "corrupted" with his ideas expressed in the US Declaration of Independence of which he was the primary author.

Benjamin Franklin was another famous Deist who "corrupted" the thinking of americans with his ideas.

I suppose that happens when one reads scripture to fit thier preconceived ideas, as opposed to reading scripture for what exactly God is trying to say.

Yes, some of those old Greeks had bits of truth here and there. How much was Augustine affected.

 

[ps139]

BT thats an excellent analysis of Plato if I ever saw one!!
Thats also why I think the guy was crazy and I am glad Aristotle rejected his ideas!!

Both philosophers are unique though, because they lived in a pagan world, where people worshipping idols, but they were monotheists. Aristotle believed in a Creator, One God, although he did not know his name. Plato went a step further and believed that the Creator was a Personal God.

Its my opinion that if they had lived after Christ, they both probably would have accepted the Gospel. Although this is pure speculation and we can never know while we are on earth.

You can see some neo-platonism in Augustine. He was a Manichean for much of his life and some of the neo-platonist/dualist ideas he held made him have a tough time accepting God. But he finally saw the light. This part of Confessions, when he describes when he first sees the light, is absolutely amazing!
However, Augustinian thought is definitely somewhat neo-platonist, but it is reconcilable with Christianity. Its like a "modified" platonism.

 

[BT]

That's really a relative question... depending on who you ask and what they know and what they think...

 

[Gold Dragon]

Yes, some of those old Greeks had bits of truth here and there. How much was Augustine affected.

Just as much as every american Christian teacher past and present, including fundamentalists and dispensationalists, is affected by the corruptions of Thomas Jefferson.