Your thoughts on Augustine?

Augustine, was anti-semitic, & could be considered the Father of "Replacement Theology," for he popularized it in his book, The City of God; thus he deviated from what was taught by the earliest church fathers (Jews), some of whom were the Apostles.

 

Generalizations are my forte

According to a source at the University of Michigan, he was limited "by not knowing much Greek." The Catholic Encyclopedia says "he read Greek with difficulty." I've seen a good number of other references to that effect. So is it strictly accurate that he could not read Greek? It's more precise to say he could read Greek but probably much as I do another foreign language--needing a dictionary by my side, not always untangling complex grammar, and missing many or most nuances and subleties of translation and thought. Could he read Greek? Yes, but not easily.

 

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Jerome translated the last phrase using a word that renders it more like "in whom all have sinned." Augustine derived his view of inherited guilt largely from this passage with that verse as a focal point. For Mary to be a spotless vessel for Christ, she had to be born without the guilt of Adam's sin, thus having to be immaculately conceived. The original sin view of the West eventually led to grace and sin being seen almost as quantifiable substances that had to be in balance before someone could enter heaven--thus residual debts of sin had to be purged that remained at the moment of death--purgatory. Purgatory led directly to indulgences to excuse one from some of the time spent there suffering, and sales of indulgences were an abuse that helped cause the Reformation. Also, Augustine's overall view of sin gave rise to the doctrine of total depravity, which necessitated unconditional election, which would have to be put into effect by irresistible grace, guaranteed by a limited atonement, and sealed, as it were, by the perseverance of the saints.

 

Tauf...: According to a source at the University of Michigan, he was limited "by not knowing much Greek."

HP: His problem was clear. He was greatly influenced by the heathen philosophical underpinnings of his former years that he obviously did not totally escape. He believed as a heathen that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will and brought that heathen notion into the church, hence the dogma of original in. He is rightfully denoted by many historians as the 'father of the doctrine of original sin.'

 

I doubt that Augustine would have agreed with your caricature of him . . .

He did much to escape his former flesh - Manicheanism . . . . And if escaping our past is a problem, then most of us still have our problems.

 

Augustine was a student of Greek Rhetoric and Latin Rhetoric. He was a professor of Rhetoric, and he taught Rhetoric in Latin.

IMHO. I do not think that your sources agree with his words . . .



IMHO. He hated Greek and loved Latin (Augustine said that) . . . however, that does not imply that he failed his classical studies. Any more than it would imply that I failed Hebrew . . . because I love Greek (did I say that I hate Hebrew?). A Rhetorical device does not imply ones level of linguistic capability.

Being multi-lingual, I understand that some languages just seem more natural to the mind than others do.

IMHO. I would rate Augustine's Greek capability above the average seminary graduate today with 2 - 3 years of Greek. I realize that is a linguistic hunch. But, linguistically, I think he got beat when he made errors in Greek. I think he got torn up! I also think he excelled at Latin, and did not get torn up. He also seemed to be a perfectionist in many ways. I think he got beat so many times that he did not remember half of them.

Further, IMHO, Augustine had a sense of modesty that was very interesting . . . Your 'source' might want to study Augustine . . . Augustine could place a rhetorical knife into his opponent and the opponent not even know he was rhetorically dead until after the debate . . .

IMHO. I think Augustine was one of the best Rhetoriticians to have lived. And I believe he would have said, "I will not translate Greek because I do not know it well enough," and then he would have torn his opponent apart in a Greek debate . . . I realize that there is no record of that . . . but, an expert in Rhetoric has to work around Greek and Latin at some time in his studies. And just as I love the Word of God enough to tough it out in Hebrew, he loved Rhetoric enough to perform in Greek.

 

The epitome of his Calvinistic teaching, Augustine credited his mother's prayers with his salvation . . .

Augustine was not a 'calvinist'.

Augustine held free will and predestination in tension with each other, and the tension he held them in was more than a true CalvinistCalvinist would like.

 

And this was also influential in the belief that the body was evil (which was then misread into the scriptures on "the flesh", which referred to our fallen wills) and his led to the Dark Ages Christian view of sex being dirty (even in marriage, and even viewed in suspicion when used for childbearing; and of course), which crept into Protestantism, and led to the sexual revolutions in Europe and America more than anything else.
He also apparently tried to rationalize dht Trinity, which ended up causing more confusion about it in the West (which eventually led to more dissension about it). The East did not do that, viewing it as something to contemplate on, rather than try to explain.
And he was said to be influential in the continued development of the papacy, somehow.

I know a lot of people respect him, but it can be argued that he was one of the worse things to happen to the Church.

 

HP: I see, as you point out clearly, the inseparable tie that exists between the points. One point follows the other, and if you deny one point, you still cannot escape the logical conclusion that you still are inseparably tied to it, for it is but a part of a whole concept, whether voluntarily admitted to by word, or involuntarily admitted to by logical deduction.

I know the there is clear reason to believe that some might hold to the ‘particular wording of one or more points’ without being inseparably tied to the whole system. For instance, many may believe in perseverance of the saints yet some may not have reached the conclusion as a direct result of any logical demands, but rather in actuality have a whole different concept of what the phrase means to them.

Another example of this might be total depravity. Two individuals might agree in total depravity as a statement, but explain it in different senses. One might see it in light of original sin, another may see it in light of the voluntary disobedience all men have willingly chosen, yet both agree in total depravity. The disagreement would be in the areas of how such depravity came into being, and how if in fact it can be transmitted to another.

In conclusion one might say that there indeed is a difference of opinion as to the meaning of a certain point between Calvinists and say Arminians, but if one accepts the meaning of the Augustinian/Calvinistic definition of original sin, the other points, as the Calvinist’s explain them are nothing short of necessitated consequences of the original thoughts on or related to original sin.

The Arminian is a very strange exception of sorts. He accepts the premise of original sin, then fights with all his might against the other points as they are understood. A strange duck indeed. (I, being a strange duck, know a strange duck when I see one and well qualified to recognize such a trait:smilewinkgrin: )