Featured Did Augustine know his Bible?

In understanding people we must also consider the time element. I still have a lot of Church of England, the church I grew up in and found Christ as Saviour, in me. I am solidly baptist now, but it did not happen overnight.

So often I read people being quoted without reference to the time period. A grave error, I think.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I'm not Jim, but I believe the coercion of people to become Christian began with the Romans, not with the early church fathers. When government mixes with religion it always seems to devolve into something Satan appreciates.

 

I had a lumber baron millionaire in my Quebec church. His wife and daughter attended regularly, but he refused. I met him one day at the local store and said it would be nice to see him in church. Then asked why he did not attend. "Too many hypocrites!" he responded. I then said, "Always room for one more!" With that we parted company. He showed up on Sunday. Three months later he came to Christ.

Why am I telling this story? It illustrates that sometimes something other than the gospel brings people to church.

History, science, nature can be used to attract people. Personalities work. In the end we all know that it is God's truth that ultimately moves people.

We should never be afraid to use any means to present God's word, and we cannot ignore a person's history when dealing with them.

The early church leaders did not possess all the facts and they were partly influenced by their surrounding. Such is the case with Augustine, Luther and Calvin. So, we quote them where we think they were correct and virtually ignore the rest of their thinking. It is the same all down through history.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Cheers,

Jim

 

They lived in a vacuum!

Rome was not a democracy like the US. There was "freedom" of sorts, but only the sort where if you disagreed with Caeser or his supporters, you died. It was just how life was. Augustine, Luther, Calvin and a great many other "great Christians" were ALL products of their culture mixed with Christianity.

We can't understand why they couldn't see the flaws in their theories, but likely they would look at us and think "if we'd only killed off a few more of them Christ would still be first in society".

 

There is no such thing as coercion to faith! Of course there is "Irresistible Grace"!:laugh::thumbs:

 

No! That is nonsense! End of sword may get assent but not Faith!

 

Perhaps you don't understand faith! Scripture tells us that faith is the gift of God, not the gift of a sword point!

 

He does.....he is engaged in some element of sarcasm. You may be reacting by getting dangerously close to what he is describing here:

Be careful not to prove him correct!!

 

One of the wonderful things about our computer age is that we can study a passage and read commentary from a wide variety of scholars.

But once we have determined for ourselves what we think the Bible says, it is hard to retrace our steps. The fact that when we cannot be blown about by every wind of doctrine means we might feel insulted when confronted with views that do not fit our paradigm.

Baptists are foursquare for separation of church and state, those that govern should not dictate "at the tip of their sword" doctrine. However, many that come from churches that mixed church and state, i.e. RCC or Church of England, still think a top down approach by dictatorial elitists who see themselves as ever so special, is the way to go. They would ban or burn at the stake those who say the orthodox view is corrupt.

So just was we can make fun of Augustine for his top down dictatorial views, we can make fun of others in church history too. Kind of gives a broader insight into the idea of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

 

I would say that if we are honest, NEARLY all of us would have to admit that Augustine probably knew his bible MUCH better than we do; as likely did Luther, Calvin, Arminius, & Wesley.

That said, we know he wasn't right about everything, and so we take what we thing is good and ignore the rest.

 

We can't possibly imagine how complicated it was for Augustine's day to have a Bible much less handle it with 21st century hermeneutical expectations.

Since the full canon of Scripture wasn't formally codified until AD 397 at the Synod of Carthage one might accurately point out that Augustine didn't "have" a text of Scripturs at his disposal for some of his ministry.

Likewise I'd challenge the OP's understanding of Augustine's use of Scripture. In reading De Trinitate or De Doctrina Christiana it becomes remarkably clear that Augustine has a thorough exegetical method undergirded by a deep knowledge of Scripture. Add in his commentaries and you've really got no case against Augustine's theology of Scripture.

I'd say Augustine handled the Scripturss well and knew them better than most of us. His use of rhetoric and reasoning in his writings is likely due to his training as a rhetorician and philosopher (there were no seminaries in his day.) In total, I'd say Augustine properly employs his techniques to make and support his points.

 

Hmm... the Anabaptists were products of the same culture that Luther and Calvin were, and yet the Anabaptists resisted the state-church practice of murdering in the name of Jesus. You can't excuse the blood lust of the Magisterial Reformers by saying they were just products of the times.