• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

What's the difference between Calvin and Augustine?

Status
Not open for further replies.

graysparrow

My life is for the kids who have it rough
Feb 6, 2005
3,853
262
54
Canary Islands
✟20,269.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm reading both and they seem to agree... so I'm a bit of puzzled :scratch: :eek: I am catholic and always taught and belived Calvin to be a heretic with St Augustine a saint (obviously) and a defender of the Catholic Church against heresies yet I can hardly find any differnce between the two.

Help!
 

Dominus Fidelis

ScottBot is Stalking Me!
Sep 10, 2003
9,260
383
51
Florida
✟33,909.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There are parts of Calvinism that we Catholics can agree with and these are probably the parts that St Augustine and Calvin agreed upon.

For example, we are free to believe in pre-destination, which is what St Augustine taught, but not Calvin's "double pre-destination" meaning that God pre-determines who is going to be a sinner and who is going to be saved.
 
Upvote 0

Borealis

Catholic Homeschool Dad
Dec 8, 2003
6,906
621
55
Barrie, Ontario
✟10,009.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
CA-Conservatives
In Augustine's day, there were not as many officially defined doctrines as there were in Calvin's day. Not only that, but Augustine always submitted to the authority of the Church even when he disagreed; he understood that as a mortal man, he was not qualified to judge and interpret Scripture without the guidance of the Magesterium, who were guided by the Holy Spirit. Calvin thought he knew better than the Church, and broke away as did Luther.
 
Upvote 0

tphuang

Active Member
Oct 31, 2004
43
2
42
Waterloo
✟22,683.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
that's the typical catholic view. Actually, the church at that time was quite corrupted from selling indulgences, avignon papacy (aka Babylonian captivity) and the Great Schism. Church was in trouble and Luther wanted nothing more than reform what's going on in the churches. Remember, the Fransiscans wanted the same. Many people inside the church saw all the corruption that was going on and wanted to clean it up.
 
Upvote 0

Philip

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity
Jun 23, 2003
5,619
241
53
Orlando, FL
Visit site
✟7,106.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
tphuang said:
and may I say, selling indulgences is one of the worst things that the Catholic church ever did. Seriously, just look at some of the actions of the catholic church in that period. You have to admit that they weren't exactly Christianlike.

What does this have to do with the differences between Calvin and Blessed Augustine?
 
Upvote 0

Borealis

Catholic Homeschool Dad
Dec 8, 2003
6,906
621
55
Barrie, Ontario
✟10,009.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
CA-Conservatives
tphuang said:
well, Borealis said that Calvin and Luther broke away from the church because they thought they were better than the church. I'm saying that's not the case.

The Council of Trent was exactly that, an attempt to clean up the mess that caused Luther and Calvin to break off from the Church. They were invited to the Council; not one of the Protestant fathers attended. They ignored the Church's attempts at reform and started their own churches instead.
 
Upvote 0

CaDan

I remember orange CF
Site Supporter
Jan 30, 2004
23,298
2,832
The Society of the Spectacle
✟134,677.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
graysparrow said:
I'm reading both and they seem to agree... so I'm a bit of puzzled :scratch: :eek: I am catholic and always taught and belived Calvin to be a heretic with St Augustine a saint (obviously) and a defender of the Catholic Church against heresies yet I can hardly find any differnce between the two.

Help!

The difference between Calvin and Augustine?

About 1100 years.

*rimshot*

Thank you! I'll be here all week!
 
Upvote 0

SPALATIN

Lifetime friend of Dr. Luther
May 5, 2004
4,905
139
64
Fort Wayne, Indiana
✟28,351.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Borealis said:
The Council of Trent was exactly that, an attempt to clean up the mess that caused Luther and Calvin to break off from the Church. They were invited to the Council; not one of the Protestant fathers attended. They ignored the Church's attempts at reform and started their own churches instead.

Perhaps the reasons for Luther not attending the Council of Trent was because he had seen some of what the Church called reform and it still didn't measure up to what was truly needed. He most likely felt it was a waste of his time.
 
Upvote 0

orthedoxy

Lusavorchagan
Dec 15, 2003
533
17
pasadena california
✟764.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
tphuang said:
and may I say, selling indulgences is one of the worst things that the Catholic church ever did. Seriously, just look at some of the actions of the catholic church in that period. You have to admit that they weren't exactly Christianlike.
Maybe Luther should've Joined the Orthodox Church insted of starting his own church. ;)
 
Upvote 0

orthedoxy

Lusavorchagan
Dec 15, 2003
533
17
pasadena california
✟764.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Please someone show where Calvin and Augustine agree.

Here is where they didn’t agree
T. Augustine didn’t believe one has to be regenerated to believe. He did believe one couldn’t come to God on his own but one has to respond to Gods calling.
U. Augustine didn’t believe everyone is unconditionally elected only infants.
L. Augustine didn’t believe in limited atonement but neither did Calvin. I think Calvin was confused on this one he believed in double predestination but not limited atonement.
I. Augustine did believe grace was resistible.
P. Augustine didn’t believe in eternal security.
 
Upvote 0

A. believer

Contributor
Jun 27, 2003
6,196
216
64
✟29,960.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
orthedoxy said:
Please someone show where Calvin and Augustine agree.

Here is where they didn’t agree
T. Augustine didn’t believe one has to be regenerated to believe. He did believe one couldn’t come to God on his own but one has to respond to Gods calling.





Calvin (and Calvinists) also say that one must respond to the gospel to be saved. And here's what Augustine said,
"It is for this reason that the word of the cross is folly for those who are perishing, but the power of God for those who are being saved (1 Cor 1:18) . God teaches all these latter to come to Christ, for he wills that all these be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tm 2:4). For, if he had willed to teach those others to come to Christ for whom the word of the cross is folly, they too would undoubtedly come. After all, he neither deceives nor is deceived who said, Everyone who has heard my Father and has learned comes to me. Heaven forbid, then, that anyone does not come who has heard the Father and has learned." John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians IV - To the Monks of Hadrumetum and Provence, The Predestination of the Saints, 8, 14, Part 1, Vol. 26, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 161.




U. Augustine didn’t believe everyone is unconditionally elected only infants.


Calvin didn't teach that everyone is unconditionally elected. :scratch:

L. Augustine didn’t believe in limited atonement but neither did Calvin. I think Calvin was confused on this one he believed in double predestination but not limited atonement.

I don't know offhand what Augustine taught on the extent of the atonement, but perhaps you can show us in Calvin's words what he taught.

I. Augustine did believe grace was resistible.
"One should, therefore, have no doubt that human wills cannot resist the will of God who in heaven and on earth has done everything he willed and who has brought about even those things which are in the future. Human wills cannot resist his will so that he does not do what he wills, since he does what he wills and when he wills even with the very wills of human beings." John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians IV - To the Monks of Hadrumetum and Provence, Rebuke and Grace, 14, 45, Part 1, Vol. 26, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 139.




P. Augustine didn’t believe in eternal security.
The "P" in tulip stands for the perseverance of the saints which means that the elect will persevere to the end unto ultimate salvation which Augustine also taught.






 
Upvote 0

A. believer

Contributor
Jun 27, 2003
6,196
216
64
✟29,960.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Lotar said:
The difference?

Read St. Augustine's writing against the Donatists for his differing Soteriology.
Read his concept of the Church.
Read his understanding of the Sacraments.
ect.

I'm not proposing that there's no difference between Calvin and Augustine--for example Augustine, based on a translation mistake in the Vulgate, believed in the concept of infused righteousness. As to his ecclesiology, it's impossible to say where he would have fallen in light of the controversies of the 16th century, but if you want to make a case for what his ecclesiological views were, you need to be specific.

In regard to his view of the sacraments, I've certainly found him to be closer to Calvin than to either the EOC or the RCC.
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Augustine ...............


Enchiridion
On Faith, Hope, and Love

Saint Augustine



CHAPTER XXV. Predestination and the Justice of God

98. Furthermore, who would be so impiously foolish as to say that God cannot turn the evil wills of men--as he willeth, when he willeth, and where he willeth--toward the good? But, when he acteth, he acteth through mercy; when he doth not act, it is through justice. For, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth; and whom he willeth, he hardeneth."205


Now when the apostle said this, he was commending grace, of which he had just spoken in connection with the twin children in Rebecca's womb: "Before they had yet been born, or had done anything good or bad, in order that the electing purpose of God might continue--not through works but through the divine calling--it was said of them, 'The elder shall serve the younger.' "206 Accordingly, he refers to another prophetic witness, where it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau have I hated."207 Then, realizing how what he said could disturb those whose understanding could not penetrate to this depth of grace, he adds: "What therefore shall we say to this? Is there unrighteousness in God? God forbid!"208 Yet it does seem unfair that, without any merit derived from good works or bad, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good deeds of the one, and evil deeds of the other--which God, of course, foreknew--he would never have said "not of good works" but rather "of future works." Thus he would have solved the difficulty; or, rather, he would have left no difficulty to be solved. As it is, however, when he went on to exclaim, "God forbid!"--that is, "God forbid that there should be unfairness in God"--he proceeds immediately to add (to prove that no unfairness in God is involved here), "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will show pity to whom I will show pity.'"209 Now, who but a fool would think God unfair either when he imposes penal judgment on the deserving or when he shows mercy to the undeserving? Finally, the apostle concludes and says, "Therefore, it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs but of God's showing mercy."210

Thus, both the twins were "by nature children of wrath,"211 not because of any works of their own, but because they were both bound in the fetters of damnation originally forged by Adam. But He who said, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," loved Jacob in unmerited mercy, yet hated Esau with merited justice. Since this judgment of wrath was due them both, the former learned from what happened to the other that the fact that he had not, with equal merit, incurred the same penalty gave him no ground to boast of his own distinctive merits--but, instead, that he should glory in the abundance of divine grace, because "it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy."212 And, indeed, the whole visage of Scripture and, if I may speak so, the lineaments of its countenance, are found to exhibit a mystery, most profound and salutary, to admonish all who carefully look thereupon "that he who glories, should glory in the Lord."213

99. Now, after the apostle had commended God's mercy in saying, "So then, there is no question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy," next in order he intends to speak also of his judgment--for where his mercy is not shown, it is not unfairness but justice. For with God there is no injustice. Thus, he immediately added, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, that I may show through you my power, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth."214 Then, having said this, he draws a conclusion that looks both ways, that is, toward mercy and toward judgment: "Therefore," he says, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth." He showeth mercy out of his great goodness; he hardeneth out of no unfairness at all. In this way, neither does he who is saved have a basis for glorying in any merit of his own; nor does the man who is damned have a basis for complaining of anything except what he has fully merited. For grace alone separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been mingled together in the one mass of perdition, arising from a common cause which leads back to their common origin. But if any man hears this in such a way as to say: "Why then does he find fault? For who resists his will?"215 --as if to make it seem that man should not therefore be blamed for being evil because God "hath mercy on whom he willeth and whom he willeth he hardeneth"--God forbid that we should be ashamed to give the same reply as we see the apostle giving: "O man, who are you to reply to God? Does the molded object say to the molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Or is not the potter master of his clay, to make from the same mass one vessel for honorable, another for ignoble, use?"216

There are some stupid men who think that in this part of the argument the apostle had no answer to give; and, for lack of a reasonable rejoinder, simply rebuked the audacity of his gainsayer. But what he said--"O man, who are you?"--has actually great weight and in an argument like this recalls man, in a single word, to consider the limits of his capacity and, at the same time, supplies an important explanation.

For if one does not understand these matters, who is he to talk back to God? And if one does understand, he finds no better ground even then for talking back. For if he understands, he sees that the whole human race was condemned in its apostate head by a divine judgment so just that not even if a single member of the race were ever saved from it, no one could rail against God's justice. And he also sees that those who are saved had to be saved on such terms that it would show--by contrast with the greater number of those not saved but simply abandoned to their wholly just damnation--what the whole mass deserved and to what end God's merited judgment would have brought them, had not his undeserved mercy interposed. Thus every mouth of those disposed to glory in their own merits should be stopped, so that "he that glories may glory in the Lord."217
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Double Predestination

Double predestination is a conclusion deduced from single predestination. If some are to enjoy God's presence by his eternal decree, others must then be eternally separated from God, also by his decree. Because salvation and glory are predestined, it follows that condemnation and destruction must also be predestined. The first theologian to enunciate a doctrine of double predestination was St. Augustine in the 5th century. He has not, however, had many successors. The best-known exponent of double predestination was the Swiss reformer John Calvin: "We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he determined within himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others" (Institutes 3. 21. 5).

http://www.open.org/mrdsnts/m00350.htm
 
Upvote 0

Philip

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity
Jun 23, 2003
5,619
241
53
Orlando, FL
Visit site
✟7,106.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
A. believer said:
for example Augustine, based on a translation mistake in the Vulgate, believed in the concept of infused righteousness.

Is the arrow pointing the correct direction here? Did St Augustine believe in infused righteousness because of the translation, or did he use the translation to support his already extant belief in infused righteousness?

I agree that some of the quirks of the Vulgate misled Augustine (yes, the above question applies to this as well) such as his forensic view of justification.

As to his ecclesiology, it's impossible to say where he would have fallen in light of the controversies of the 16th century, but if you want to make a case for what his ecclesiological views were, you need to be specific.

Certainly we can not know how he would have reacted to the Reformation. However, it would be interesting to see if his words on Donatism are relevant. (Not an accusation, just wondering if there are parallels between the two schisms.)

In regard to his view of the sacraments, I've certainly found him to be closer to Calvin than to either the EOC or the RCC.

I suppose that everyone can guess how I found his views.
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
For Augustine, grace is efficacious because God’s decree is efficacious and God’s decree is efficacious because God is a sovereign, efficacious God who does whatsoever He wills. Grace is also particular. God sovereignly decreed to reprobate some and choose others.12 Contrary to the Semi-Pelagians, Augustine taught that election and reprobation were not on the basis of foreseen faith or foreseen unbelief. The elect receive grace and the reprobate do not, and no other reason can be sought than the inscrutable will of God.

Augustine taught the election of the saints in Christ as members of His body: "As, therefore, that one man [Christ] was predestined to be our Head, so we being many are predestinated to be His members."13 Moreover, Augustine also taught reprobation:



[God] used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice he has predestined to punishment.14


[The human] race we have distributed into two parts, the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil.15

http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/covenant3.htm


 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.