St. Augustine of Hippo

[nill]

Now, I haven't read much yet, but I'd like to know exactly,... what do you who are Orthodox think of Augustine, really? Because I've met two Orthodox on another web forum (and admittedly, they are the only two there that we know of--it's not a big forum), and they are strongly anti-Augustine. As a matter of fact, the one is strongly anti-Protestant and has said as many derogatory and nasty things about Protestantism in general, and the other has said said that " Augustine's teachings were actually condemned in the East. " Is this the typical view of most Orthodox?

 

[Bulldog]

Now, I haven't read much yet, but I'd like to know exactly,... what do you who are Orthodox think of Augustine, really? Because I've met two Orthodox on another web forum (and admittedly, they are the only two there that we know of--it's not a big forum), and they are strongly anti-Augustine. As a matter of fact, the one is strongly anti-Protestant and has said as many derogatory and nasty things about Protestantism in general, and the other has said said that " Augustine's teachings were actually condemned in the East. " Is this the typical view of most Orthodox?

Yes, because in the whole Augustine-Pelagius debate the East more or less adopted the semi-pelagian view. Augstine's views of sin, predestination, and perserverence are very opposed the the Orthodox view of grace.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

We are opposed to a lot of Augustine's theology, and he had very little/no influence on Eastern Christianity, but we still recognize him as a saint.

 

[Kripost]

One factor for the lack of influence in the east was that St Augustine knew very little Greek, and wrote almost entirely in Latin.

 

[NewToLife]

Now, I haven't read much yet, but I'd like to know exactly,... what do you who are Orthodox think of Augustine, really? Because I've met two Orthodox on another web forum (and admittedly, they are the only two there that we know of--it's not a big forum), and they are strongly anti-Augustine. As a matter of fact, the one is strongly anti-Protestant and has said as many derogatory and nasty things about Protestantism in general, and the other has said said that " Augustine's teachings were actually condemned in the East. " Is this the typical view of most Orthodox?

Blessed Augustine is an Orthodox Saint and a shining example of piety that we all can learn from, any Orthodox saying derogotary or nasty things about him ought to carefully consider their position.

All of this does not of course mean that Orthodox accept uncritically Blessed Augustine's theology which typically would be seen as containing error.

 

[ps139]

One factor for the lack of influence in the east was that St Augustine knew very little Greek, and wrote almost entirely in Latin.

He also had a strong distaste for the Greek language. Its really too bad.

 

[Patristic]

Most Orthodox disagree with parts of Augustine's theology because it too closely resembled Manichaeism, a sect to which Augustine once belonged before he became a Christian. Although the East still disagrees with parts of his teachings it still regards him as a Saint.

 

[California Dreamin']

I go to a Christian university and we have to take a first year class called Themes of the Bible and one of the topics was St. Augustine of Hippo.

 

[A. believer]

Was St. Augustine really a good man? I've heard so many conflicting things about him. For example, Jack Chick, the publisher, states in one of his magazines that Augustine supported the oppression of Protestants by the Catholic Church. I want to believe that Augustine was a good man, but was he?

More than likely, in making that statement Jack Chick is equating Protestants with Donatists, a schismatic group that Augustine spoke firmly against. Augustine was very influential, I believe, in putting down the Donatist controversy. The statement is, I believe, typical of Jack Chick, whose own peculiar lens through which he views church history causes his work to be thoroughly misleading, at best, and downright dishonest, at worst.

 

[mbkndomer]

Somebody help me here:

1. Why are Augustine's views vs. Pelagius considered erroneous by the Orthodox?

2. How has the Orthodox Church "adopted" the semi-Pelagian view? THis was sort of answered for me in a thread on TAW, but I'd like to hear it here from the horse's mouth so to speak.

 

[Philip]

1. Why are Augustine's views vs. Pelagius considered erroneous by the Orthodox?

It is not that we see St Augustine's views flawed comapred to Pelagius. Both began with a Western mindset. They differed in their conclusions. We are not concerned with the flaws we see in their conclusions since we do not agree with their premises.

To many Orthodox, Augustine's views are fatalistic and bear too strong a resemblence to the teachings of Mani.

2. How has the Orthodox Church "adopted" the semi-Pelagian view? THis was sort of answered for me in a thread on TAW, but I'd like to hear it here from the horse's mouth so to speak.

We haven't. To say so is to misunderstand Orthodoxy.

 

[mbkndomer]

Such was my understanding. However, the semi-Pelagian charge was made previously in the thread. I am trying to comprehend the origin of such a claim.

 

[Philip]

It usually comes from a unintentional attempt to fit Orthodoxy into the Western model. It doesn't really bother me since it is a natural thing to do. We all try to understand things in terms of what we already know. Some Calvinists tend to see Christianity as a dicotomy between Calvinists and Arminians. As a result, the disputes between St Augustine and Pelagius are cast in these terms -- Calvin agreed with Augustine and Arminianism is just warmed over (semi-)Pelagianism. Since the Orthodox obviously aren't Calvinists, we are often lumped in with the Arminians.

If you want to understand our point of view, try reading the writings of Sts John Chrysostrom (especially his homelies on the Book of Romans) and John Cassian. Both are available at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ .

 

[Bulldog]

Since the Orthodox obviously aren't Calvinists, we are often lumped in with the Arminians.

Except the fact that you don't associate with Jacobus Arminianius, what do you think seprates you from Arminianism?

 

[Philip]

We are separated from Arminianism and the rest of Western Christianity by, among other things, our understanding of justification.

 

[tigersnare]

We are separated from Arminianism and the rest of Western Christianity by, among other things, our understanding of justification.

So are you guys inline with Rome, "infused" righteousness, as opposed to Arminian and Calvinist's "imputed" righteousness?

 

[Philip]

No, not really. Both infused and imputed righteousness, as I understand them, deal with justification in forensic way: Man sins and is unacceptable to God. Christ died as punishment for our sins. Because of this, God forgives our sins, and judges us rightous. Correct?

In the East, we veiw things differently. We are forgiven because God loves us. There is no punishment to be given -- our sins have been cast into the depth of the sea. Since we believe that God forgives sins freely, we do not get stuck in a debate about how we are judged not guilty -- whether Christ's rightousness is infused or imputed.

 

[Kripost]

Except the fact that you don't associate with Jacobus Arminianius, what do you think seprates you from Arminianism?

One word: Theosis

 

[PaladinValer]

Was St. Augustine really a good man? I've heard so many conflicting things about him.

Like?

For example, Jack Chick, the publisher, states in one of his magazines that Augustine supported the oppression of Protestants by the Catholic Church.

What Protestants? You mean heretics like him? Yup; in his book, On Christian Teaching, he rebukes Donatists (Jack Chick is one) and Pelagians for their erronous beliefs.

Problem is, there were no "Protestants" as in Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, or Baptists (I'm using the term "Protestant" broadley) during St. Augustine of Hippo's time. None. Natta. Nunca.

In addition, from a totally historical, non-biased view, the Vatican Church wasn't around then either. When the Great Schism of 1054 occurred, both the Vatican Church and the Eastern Church broke off from each other, each excommunicating the other. Back during St. Augustine of Hippo's time, the Church truly was Catholic...it had no splits at all; even the Oriental Church (often considered "monophystics" but in reality, their positions on the Nature of Jesus aren't even close to be called such) hadn't broke yet.

Do realize that Jack Chick is perhaps one of the worst sources of information on the Christian religion you can possibly use.

I want to believe that Augustine was a good man, but was he?

1. He was the bishop of Hippo
2. He was a convert from Paganism and Manicheanism to orthodox Christianity
3. He was one of the greatest scholars of the Holy Bible of his time
4. His writings, particularly Confessions, On Christian Teaching, and City of God, are classic works depicting orthodox Christianity.
5. He was canonized as a Saint (recognized for living an exemplorary life beyond required of the saints, worthy of veneration [not worship] and imitation) by the Church for his faith, deeds, and many works promoting the faith and defending orthodoxy in 1303, still more than 200 years before Luther's first major public challenge (Calvin came later, as did the Anabaptists).

 

[tigersnare]

In the East, we veiw things differently. We are forgiven because God loves us. There is no punishment to be given -- our sins have been cast into the depth of the sea. Since we believe that God forgives sins freely, we do not get stuck in a debate about how we are judged not guilty -- whether Christ's rightousness is infused or imputed.

What was the point of the O.T. sacrficial system?

What was the point of Christ's sacrifice?