Augustine and Total Depravity

Matt,

I guess that if you take your train of thought to its logical conclusions, then I should take everything you have to say with a grain of salt because you have been influenced by the enlightenment. Augustine was a product of his time, just as you and I are. Whether we like it or not, Greek philosophy (as well as all the other cultural philosophies since) has impacted Christianity's interpretation of its core values. It is historically impossible to separate out what is Christian from what is cultural.

The question here has nothing to do with that particular issue, however. The fact remains that Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other post-biblical source in his writings (with Bernard of Clarviox coming in 2nd or 3rd--also a product of his time). It seems indesputable that the theological writing of Augustine heavily impacted Calvin and thus Calvinist thought. Taking that fact, how then can we understand what Augustine said and how does that differ from Calvin(ists). I would submit that Augustine didn't have as harsh an understanding of human depravity as Calvin(ists).

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

BTW, Manichaeism is a sort of gnosticism, and yes, Augustine was a "hearer" in that movement for a time; however, he wrote several polemical works against the Manichees and gnosticism after his conversion.

Yes, he was influenced by neo-Platonic thought, but so was everyone else in the post-biblical (argueably even earlier--i.e. the Apostle Paul) period. Neo-plationism is what allowed orthodoxy to win theological polemics against the commonsensical, literalistic readings of certain text (especially, the OT) of Arians and Gnostics.

As far as baptismal regeneration goes, Calvin and Luther also believed such things. That doesn't seem like it totally destroy the abilities and impact of the theologian for our history and theology.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Matt,