civic
Well-known member
Except no one is drowning
Determinism in Calvinism and the Reformed Confessions
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
The errors of the Gnostics were continually rejected by the Early Church, but the Gnostics continued to try to penetrate the Church with their views. The Gnostics even wrote their own gospels, known as the Gnostic Gospels today, where they stole credible names like Mary and Thomas to try to give validity to their teachings.
While many of the attempts of the Gnostics to infiltrate the Church failed, and many of their views are widely rejected today, it seems that their particular view of human nature, free will, and the nature of sin has found wide acceptance in the Church today.
On Free will
Regarding the term “free will,” John Calvin admitted “As to the Fathers, (if their authority weighs with us,) they have the term constantly in their mouths…”[31]He said, “The Greek fathers above others” have taught “the power of the human will”[32] and “they have not been ashamed to make use of a much more arrogant expression calling man ‘free agent or self-manager,’ just as if man had a power to govern himself…”[33] He also said, “The Latin fathers have always retained the word ‘free will’ as if man stood yet upright.”[34] It is a fact that cannot be denied even by those who most ardently oppose the doctrine of free will, that the doctrine of free will and not that of inability was held by all of the Early Church.
Walter Arthur Copinger said, “All the Fathers are unanimous on the freedom of the human will…”[35]Lyman Beecher said, “the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church…”[36] And Dr Wiggers said, “All the fathers…agreed with the Pelagians, in attributing freedom of will to man in his present state.”[37] This is a very important point because whenever a person today holds to the belief that all men have the natural ability to obey God or not to obey Him, or that man’s nature still retains the faculty of free will and can choose between these two alternatives and possibilities, he is almost immediately accused of being a heretical “Pelagian” by the Calvinists. This accusation is being unfair to the position of free will since all of the Early Church Fathers held to free will long before Pelagius even existed.
On Original sin
Harry Conn said, “Augustine, after studying the philosophy of Manes, the Persian philosopher, brought into the church from Manichaeism the doctrine of original sin.”[51]
The corruption of our nature, or the loss of our free will, Augustine credited to the original sin of Adam. Augustine said that the “free choice of the will was present in that man who was the first to be formed… But after he sinned by that free will, we who have descended from his progeny have been plunged into necessity.”[52] “By Adam’s transgression, the freedom of’ the human will has been completely lost.”[53] “By the greatness of the first sin, we have lost the freewill to love God.” And finally he said, “by subverting the rectitude in which he was created, he is followed with the punishment of not being able to do right” and “the freedom to abstain from sin has been lost as a punishment of sin.”[54]
Consider the following facts:
- All of the Early Christians, before Augustine, believed in man’s free will and denied man’s natural inability.
- The Gnostics in the days of the Early Church believed in man’s natural inability and denied man’s free will.
- Augustine was a Gnostic for many years, in the Manichaeism sect, and converted to the Church out of Gnosticism.
- After joining the Church and being appointed a Bishop, Augustine began to deny the free will of man and to affirm the natural inability of man
- The Church, under Augustine’s influence, began to believe in the natural inability of man, which it never before held to, but which it formerly would refute.
The reason that John Calvin rejected all ancient theologians and dismissed all of their writings on this matter, except for Augustine, is because all ancient theologians affirmed the freedom of the will in their writings, except for Augustine. Gregory Boyd said, “This in part explains why Calvin cannot cite ante-Nicene fathers against his libertarian opponents…. Hence, when Calvin debates Pighuis on the freedom of the will, he cites Augustine abundantly, but no early church fathers are cited.”[80] That is why George Pretyman said, “…the peculiar tenets of Calvinism are in direct opposition to the Doctrines maintained in the primitive Church of Christ…” This we have clearly seen, but he also said, “…there is a great similarity between the Calvinistic system and the earliest [Gnostic] heresies…”[81]
The Reformers sought to return the Church to early Christianity, but actually brought it back to early heresies, because it stopped short at Augustine. The Reformers did not go far back enough. Rather than returning the Church to early Christianity, the Reformation resurrected Augustinian and Gnostic doctrines. The Methodist Quarterly Review said, “At the Reformation Augustinianism received an emphatic re-enforcement among the Protestant Churches.”[82] The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics said, “…it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine… the Reformation came, seeing that it was, on its theological side, a revival of Augustinianism…”[83] The Reformation was to a great extent a resurrection or revival of Augustinian theology and a further departure and falling away from Early Christianity.
Gnosticism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism have much in common. Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism teach Gnostic views of human nature and free will but under a different name. It’s the same old Gnosticism in a new wrapper. Other doctrines also seem to have originated in Gnosticism, from Basilianism, Valentianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism, such as the doctrines of easy believism, individual predestination, constitutional regeneration, a sinful nature or a sinful flesh, eternal security or once saved always saved, and others. But no Gnostic doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church, with such great acceptance as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God. https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
The Apple doesn't fall far from the Tree !
THERE IS NO QUESTION that Calvin imposed upon the Bible certain erroneous interpretations from his Roman Catholic background. Many leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists David Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that “The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.”1
In his eye-opening book, The Other Side of Calvinism, Laurence M. Vance thoroughly documents that “John Calvin did not originate the doctrines that bear his name....”2 Vance quotes numerous well-known Calvinists to this effect. For example, Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton write, “The system of doctrine which bears the name of John Calvin was in no way originated by him....”3 B. B. Warfield declared, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.”4 Thus the debt that the creeds coming out of the Reformation owe to Augustine is also acknowledged. This is not surprising in view of the fact that most of the Reformers had been part of the Roman Catholic Church, of which Augustine was one of the most highly regarded “saints.” John Piper acknowledges that Augustine was the major influence upon both Calvin and Luther, who continued to revere him and his doctrines even after they broke away from Roman Catholicism.5
C. H. Spurgeon admitted that “perhaps Calvin himself derived it [Calvinism] mainly from the writings of Augustine.”6 Alvin L. Baker wrote, “There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of Augustine’s influence.”7 For example, the following from Augustine sounds like an echo reverberating through the writings of Calvin:
Even as he has appointed them to be regenerated...whom he predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace, whilst to those whom he has predestinated to eternal death, he is also the most righteous awarder of punishment.8
C. Gregg Singer said, “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.”9 Such statements are staggering declarations in view of the undisputed fact that, as Vance points out, the Roman Catholic Church itself has a better claim on Augustine than do the Calvinists.10 Calvin himself said:
Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.11
Augustine and the Use of Force
The fourth century Donatists believed that the church should be a pure communion of true believers who demonstrated the truth of the gospel in their lives. They abhorred the apostasy that had come into the church when Constantine wedded Christianity to paganism in order to unify the empire. Compromising clergy were “evil priests working hand in glove with the kings of the earth, who show that they have no king but Caesar.” To the Donatists, the church was a “small body of saved surrounded by the unregenerate mass.”12 This is, of course, the biblical view.
Augustine, on the other hand, saw the church of his day as a mixture of believers and unbelievers, in which purity and evil should be allowed to exist side by side for the sake of unity. He used the power of the state to compel church attendance (as Calvin also would 1,200 years later): “Whoever was not found within the Church was not asked the reason, but was to be corrected and converted....”13 Calvin followed his mentor Augustine in enforcing church attendance and participation in the sacraments by threats (and worse) against the citizens of Geneva. Augustine “identified the Donatists as heretics...who could be subjected to imperial legislation [and force] in exactly the same way as other criminals and misbelievers, including poisoners and pagans.”14 Frend says of Augustine, “The questing, sensitive youth had become the father of the inquisition.”15
Though he preferred persuasion if possible, Augustine supported military force against those who were rebaptized as believers after conversion to Christ and for other alleged heretics. In his controversy with the Donatists, using a distorted and un-Christian interpretation of Luke:14:23
,16 Augustine declared:
Why therefore should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return?... The Lord Himself said, “Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in....” Wherefore is the power which the Church has received...through the religious character and faith of kings...the instrument by which those who are found in the highways and hedges—that is, in heresies and schisms—are compelled to come in, and let them not find fault with being compelled.17
Sadly, Calvin put into effect in Geneva the very principles of punishment, coercion, and death that Augustine advocated and that the Roman CatholicChurch followed consistently for centuries. Henry H. Milman writes: “Augustinianism was worked up into a still more rigid and uncompromising system by the severe intellect of Calvin.”18 And he justified himself by Augustine’s erroneous interpretation of Luke:14:23
. How could any who today hail Calvin as a great exegete accept such abuse of this passage?
Compel? Isn’t that God’s job through Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace? Compel those for whom Christ didn’t die and whom God has predestined to eternal torment? This verse refutes Calvinism no matter how it is intepreted!hunt
hope this helps !!!
THERE IS NO QUESTION that Calvin imposed upon the Bible certain erroneous interpretations from his Roman Catholic background. Many leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists David Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that “The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.”1
In his eye-opening book, The Other Side of Calvinism, Laurence M. Vance thoroughly documents that “John Calvin did not originate the doctrines that bear his name....”2 Vance quotes numerous well-known Calvinists to this effect. For example, Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton write, “The system of doctrine which bears the name of John Calvin was in no way originated by him....”3 B. B. Warfield declared, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.”4 Thus the debt that the creeds coming out of the Reformation owe to Augustine is also acknowledged. This is not surprising in view of the fact that most of the Reformers had been part of the Roman Catholic Church, of which Augustine was one of the most highly regarded “saints.” John Piper acknowledges that Augustine was the major influence upon both Calvin and Luther, who continued to revere him and his doctrines even after they broke away from Roman Catholicism.5
C. H. Spurgeon admitted that “perhaps Calvin himself derived it [Calvinism] mainly from the writings of Augustine.”6 Alvin L. Baker wrote, “There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of Augustine’s influence.”7 For example, the following from Augustine sounds like an echo reverberating through the writings of Calvin:
Even as he has appointed them to be regenerated...whom he predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace, whilst to those whom he has predestinated to eternal death, he is also the most righteous awarder of punishment.8
C. Gregg Singer said, “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.”9 Such statements are staggering declarations in view of the undisputed fact that, as Vance points out, the Roman Catholic Church itself has a better claim on Augustine than do the Calvinists.10 Calvin himself said:
Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.11
Augustine and the Use of Force
The fourth century Donatists believed that the church should be a pure communion of true believers who demonstrated the truth of the gospel in their lives. They abhorred the apostasy that had come into the church when Constantine wedded Christianity to paganism in order to unify the empire. Compromising clergy were “evil priests working hand in glove with the kings of the earth, who show that they have no king but Caesar.” To the Donatists, the church was a “small body of saved surrounded by the unregenerate mass.”12 This is, of course, the biblical view.
Augustine, on the other hand, saw the church of his day as a mixture of believers and unbelievers, in which purity and evil should be allowed to exist side by side for the sake of unity. He used the power of the state to compel church attendance (as Calvin also would 1,200 years later): “Whoever was not found within the Church was not asked the reason, but was to be corrected and converted....”13 Calvin followed his mentor Augustine in enforcing church attendance and participation in the sacraments by threats (and worse) against the citizens of Geneva. Augustine “identified the Donatists as heretics...who could be subjected to imperial legislation [and force] in exactly the same way as other criminals and misbelievers, including poisoners and pagans.”14 Frend says of Augustine, “The questing, sensitive youth had become the father of the inquisition.”15
Though he preferred persuasion if possible, Augustine supported military force against those who were rebaptized as believers after conversion to Christ and for other alleged heretics. In his controversy with the Donatists, using a distorted and un-Christian interpretation of Luke:14:23
,16 Augustine declared:
Why therefore should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return?... The Lord Himself said, “Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in....” Wherefore is the power which the Church has received...through the religious character and faith of kings...the instrument by which those who are found in the highways and hedges—that is, in heresies and schisms—are compelled to come in, and let them not find fault with being compelled.17
Sadly, Calvin put into effect in Geneva the very principles of punishment, coercion, and death that Augustine advocated and that the Roman CatholicChurch followed consistently for centuries. Henry H. Milman writes: “Augustinianism was worked up into a still more rigid and uncompromising system by the severe intellect of Calvin.”18 And he justified himself by Augustine’s erroneous interpretation of Luke:14:23
. How could any who today hail Calvin as a great exegete accept such abuse of this passage?
Compel? Isn’t that God’s job through Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace? Compel those for whom Christ didn’t die and whom God has predestined to eternal torment? This verse refutes Calvinism no matter how it is intepreted!hunt
hope this helps !!!
Seeing as the issue was determination I have accomplished my purpose,
however I already informed you God works to bring good out of what happens
Seeing as I never stated all things means a few things I see no reason why I should be explaining such
Um Augustin was a manichean for almost 10 years and manicheanism was gnostic
AUGUSTINE
AUGUSTINE, prominent Christian theologian and philosopher, born 354 in Thagaste, Numidia. In 373 he became a Manichean and for nine years belonged to their church as a layman, auditor. His profession as a rhetor and his intellectual curiosity made him ponder over Manichean doctrines from a philosophical point of view. The reading of Cicero’s work Hortensius incited him to find real Wisdom. It was the pretension of the Manicheans to possess Wisdom that induced Augustine to be one of them. Pursuing his philosophical studies, in an eclectic way based upon the Academy, Aristotelian logic, the Stoa, and Neoplatonism, Augustine soon discovered that Manicheism was in no way built upon philosophical premises, but on the preaching of its founder, Mani. Augustine urged the leading Manichean theologians of his community to answer his questions concerning crucial points of the doctrine but was constantly referred to the foremost Manichean thinker, Faustus of Mileve, then living in Italy. When Faustus ultimately appeared, he frankly admitted that he was unable to solve Augustine’s problems. Augustine’s astronomical studies had revealed the non-rational nature of the Manichean explanation of the universe and celestial phenomena (Confessiones 5.5.8). Their so-called “Wisdom” turned out to be a mixture of myths and rather childish speculations. This does not mean, however, that during his nine years as an auditor he was only halfway a Manichean, as he later tried to make believe. He was skeptical, but still a believer.
The conversation with Faustus had a decisive influence on his attitude towards Manicheism. His Confessiones show that up to this time he had scrupulously obeyed the Manichean commandments (Confessiones 3.10; 4.1). He refused with horror to kill even a fly (4.2.3). He used to defend the Manichean doctrines and was active in making proselytes (6.7.12). In that way he influenced his friend Alypius. He even wrote a treatise De pulchro et apto, based upon Manichean doctrines (4.13).
Augustine’s intellectual difficulties were in part due to strong pressure from his mother Monica, a Christian, and some close friends. Monica had never ceased to hope that Augustine would ultimately embrace Christianity, under the influence of which he had been brought up, and his friend Nebridius pointed out the great logical difficulties inherent in the system of Mani. Under the influence of another friend he abandoned belief in astrology, which made him disbelieve Mani’s astrological doctrines. In the West the Manicheans claimed to preach the true Christianity and on the basis of Marcion’s criticism of both the Old and the New Testament, they argued in their exegesis that many important scriptural passages had been falsified. But they were not able to prove their assertions. Undoubtedly, Augustine was also impressed by the attitude of the majority of the population and the malevolent rumors spread among Christians about alleged sexual excesses among the electi. However, such rumors constitute a common topic of criticism and can not be relied upon. After the discussion with Faustus Augustine, already withdrawing from Manicheism, left North Africa for Italy, accompanied by his son, mother, and friends. After a stay at Rome, where he still had contacts with the Manichean community, he took up a position at Milan as professor of rhetoric. It was here that he abandoned Manicheism in favor of the ancient philosophers. The influence of Ambrosius, bishop of Milan, the tears of his mother, the study of Neoplatonism as expounded by the Christian philosopher Marius Victorinus carried him now definitely back to Christianity where he once had been a catechumen. At Easter 387 he was baptized by Ambrosius together with his son Adeodatus and his friend Alypius. He then returned via Ostia—where his mother died—to Africa with the intention to devote himself to the service of the Church. Appointed presbyter in 391, he was elected bishop of Hippo in 395. He died there in 430 during the invasion of the Teutonic Vandals.
After his conversion Augustine attacked Manicheism in a series of writings. In public disputations he exposed the Manichean dogmas to trenchant criticisms with the skill and ruthlessness of a trained rhetor and the dialectical ability of a philosopher. His most important anti-Manichean works are: De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, De genesi contra Manichaeos, De moribus Manichaeorum, De utilitate credendi, De duabus animabus, Contra Fortunatum, Contra Adimantum, Contra Epistulam Fundumenti, Contra Faustum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, De natura boni, De haeresibus 46. Augustine also composed an abjuration formula to be used by former Manicheans. (See also De libero arbitrio, De moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, De vera religione, Enchiridion.)
In his polemic Augustine discusses such problems as had caused him difficulties during his period as an auditor. He accordingly attacks those aspects of Manichean dogmatics he finds weak from a philosophical point of view, above all the lack of perfection he discovers in the idea of God and his kingdom in comparison with his enemy, the kingdom of Darkness with its redoubtable prince. Since God according to Mani is limited in so far as his kingdom borders on Darkness, Augustine argues that he is not perfect. Further, how can God be a pure spirit and incorporeal if he has a common border with a corporeal being? The Manichean theologians were unable to answer these objections for they lacked their opponent’s philosophical training and had to defend a religious system based upon inherited Iranian mythology. In vain they tried to attack weak points in Christian dogmatics. Their position in the West was unfavorable, as they tried to teach Manicheism as the esoteric, true Christian doctrine; but in doing so they had recourse to Marcion’s thesis of falsification of Scriptures without being able to demonstrate the correctness of this allegation. They were on safer ground when trying to show—after Marcion—the great difference between the Old and the New Testament. Their argumentation here followed arguments Mani had taken over from Marcion. In their argumentation with Augustine the Manicheans relied on exegesis whereas Augustine was especially strong in his philosophical arguments. With sharp irony Augustine criticizes the Manichean pantheon as well as the rich mythology of the system. The Manichean myths appear to him as a collection of naive, absurd, and partly obscene fables. Here again his opponents were placed in an impossible situation because they were not able to give a satisfactory interpretation of the inherited myths. As to the founder Mani’s own position, Augustine underlines the fact that no Christian text mentions Mani as Apostle and still less as the promised Paraclete, a claim essential to his attitude vis-à-vis Christianity. Here again the Manicheans could only fall back on Mani’s own assertions. Even though the Manichean Fortunatus displayed great skill in his disputation with Augustine, the general impression is that the Manicheans were helpless against an opponent who possessed the same dogmatic knowledge of their religion as they themselves and who used all the methods dialectics could give him. Augustine’s attacks are, on the whole, not unfair but he shows no understanding of the great religious problem at the bottom of the system, namely the necessity to explain the existence and cause of evil. Augustine’s own solution that evil is only a privation of good, privatioboni, is dictated by his Neoplatonic position and is at least as difficult to justify as the Manichean position. On the whole, the nine years Augustine belonged to Manicheism, although leaving some traces in his Christian thinking, as is emphasized by some scholars (Baur, Harnack), influenced him much less strongly and deeply than Neoplatonism (see the summary given by Capelle).
For the study of Latin-speaking Manicheism Augustine remains an invaluable source, but it should always be remembered that the Manicheism he describes is not the original system as developed by Mani, but a later adaptation to Christianity. This fundamental fact is sometimes forgotten (e.g., by Decret). To Augustine himself it was always clear that Manicheism was a fabula persica (Contra Secundinum, chap. 2).
Bibliography:
Editions of Augustine’s works: J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursur completus, series Latina XXXII-XLVI, Sancti Aurelii Augustini . . . opera omnia, Paris, 1841-42.
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, distributed between vols. XII and LXXXV, Vienna, 1887-1974. Ed. and tr.
R. Jolivet and L. M. Jourjon, Oeuvres de Saint Augustin XVII (Bibliothèque Augustinienne): Six traités anti-Manichéens, Paris, 1961.
M. Dods, tr., The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo V: Writings in Connection with the Manichaean Heresy, Edinburgh, 1872.
Studies of Augustine and his relation to Manicheism: A. Adam, “Das Fortwirken des Manichaismus bei Augustin,” Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 69, 1958, pp. 1-25.
P. Alfaric, L’évolution intellectuelle de saint Augustin, Paris, 1918.
F. C. Baur, Das manichäische Religionssystem, Tübingen, 1831.
P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, Berkeley, 1969.
Idem, Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine, New York, 1972.
E. Buonaiuti, “Manichaeism and Augustine’s Idea of "Massa Perditionis",” Harvard Theological Review 20, 1927, pp. 117-27.
B. Capelle, “Augustinus,” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum I, Stuttgart, 1950, pp. 981-93.
P. Courcelle, Recherches sur les Confessions de saint Augustin, Paris, 1950.
F. Decret, Aspects du manichéisme dans l’Afrique romaine, Paris, 1970.
A. von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I, 5th ed., Tübingen, 1931.
J. P. de Menasce, “Augustin manichéen,” Freundesgabe für Ernst Robert Curtius, Berne, 1956, pp. 79-93.
Search terms:
| اگوستین | agustine |
(G. Widengren)
Originally Published: December 15, 1987
Last Updated: August 17, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. III, Fasc. 1, pp. 27-28
Welcome to Encyclopaedia Iranica
The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a comprehensive research tool dedicated to the study of Iranian civilization in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent
If Calvinism is going to be consistent then logical the reason Adam fell is because God determined it.
One cannot say God determined all things while denying god determined the fall
No I do not believe God is responsible for the fall. I believe God allows for free will in that real relationship can only exist if it is free.
civic
Well-known member
lol now who is the revisionistUm Augustin was a manichean for almost 10 years and manicheanism was gnostic
AUGUSTINE
AUGUSTINE, prominent Christian theologian and philosopher, born 354 in Thagaste, Numidia. In 373 he became a Manichean and for nine years belonged to their church as a layman, auditor. His profession as a rhetor and his intellectual curiosity made him ponder over Manichean doctrines from a philosophical point of view. The reading of Cicero’s work Hortensius incited him to find real Wisdom. It was the pretension of the Manicheans to possess Wisdom that induced Augustine to be one of them. Pursuing his philosophical studies, in an eclectic way based upon the Academy, Aristotelian logic, the Stoa, and Neoplatonism, Augustine soon discovered that Manicheism was in no way built upon philosophical premises, but on the preaching of its founder, Mani. Augustine urged the leading Manichean theologians of his community to answer his questions concerning crucial points of the doctrine but was constantly referred to the foremost Manichean thinker, Faustus of Mileve, then living in Italy. When Faustus ultimately appeared, he frankly admitted that he was unable to solve Augustine’s problems. Augustine’s astronomical studies had revealed the non-rational nature of the Manichean explanation of the universe and celestial phenomena (Confessiones 5.5.8). Their so-called “Wisdom” turned out to be a mixture of myths and rather childish speculations. This does not mean, however, that during his nine years as an auditor he was only halfway a Manichean, as he later tried to make believe. He was skeptical, but still a believer.
The conversation with Faustus had a decisive influence on his attitude towards Manicheism. His Confessiones show that up to this time he had scrupulously obeyed the Manichean commandments (Confessiones 3.10; 4.1). He refused with horror to kill even a fly (4.2.3). He used to defend the Manichean doctrines and was active in making proselytes (6.7.12). In that way he influenced his friend Alypius. He even wrote a treatise De pulchro et apto, based upon Manichean doctrines (4.13).
Augustine’s intellectual difficulties were in part due to strong pressure from his mother Monica, a Christian, and some close friends. Monica had never ceased to hope that Augustine would ultimately embrace Christianity, under the influence of which he had been brought up, and his friend Nebridius pointed out the great logical difficulties inherent in the system of Mani. Under the influence of another friend he abandoned belief in astrology, which made him disbelieve Mani’s astrological doctrines. In the West the Manicheans claimed to preach the true Christianity and on the basis of Marcion’s criticism of both the Old and the New Testament, they argued in their exegesis that many important scriptural passages had been falsified. But they were not able to prove their assertions. Undoubtedly, Augustine was also impressed by the attitude of the majority of the population and the malevolent rumors spread among Christians about alleged sexual excesses among the electi. However, such rumors constitute a common topic of criticism and can not be relied upon. After the discussion with Faustus Augustine, already withdrawing from Manicheism, left North Africa for Italy, accompanied by his son, mother, and friends. After a stay at Rome, where he still had contacts with the Manichean community, he took up a position at Milan as professor of rhetoric. It was here that he abandoned Manicheism in favor of the ancient philosophers. The influence of Ambrosius, bishop of Milan, the tears of his mother, the study of Neoplatonism as expounded by the Christian philosopher Marius Victorinus carried him now definitely back to Christianity where he once had been a catechumen. At Easter 387 he was baptized by Ambrosius together with his son Adeodatus and his friend Alypius. He then returned via Ostia—where his mother died—to Africa with the intention to devote himself to the service of the Church. Appointed presbyter in 391, he was elected bishop of Hippo in 395. He died there in 430 during the invasion of the Teutonic Vandals.
After his conversion Augustine attacked Manicheism in a series of writings. In public disputations he exposed the Manichean dogmas to trenchant criticisms with the skill and ruthlessness of a trained rhetor and the dialectical ability of a philosopher. His most important anti-Manichean works are: De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, De genesi contra Manichaeos, De moribus Manichaeorum, De utilitate credendi, De duabus animabus, Contra Fortunatum, Contra Adimantum, Contra Epistulam Fundumenti, Contra Faustum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, De natura boni, De haeresibus 46. Augustine also composed an abjuration formula to be used by former Manicheans. (See also De libero arbitrio, De moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, De vera religione, Enchiridion.)
In his polemic Augustine discusses such problems as had caused him difficulties during his period as an auditor. He accordingly attacks those aspects of Manichean dogmatics he finds weak from a philosophical point of view, above all the lack of perfection he discovers in the idea of God and his kingdom in comparison with his enemy, the kingdom of Darkness with its redoubtable prince. Since God according to Mani is limited in so far as his kingdom borders on Darkness, Augustine argues that he is not perfect. Further, how can God be a pure spirit and incorporeal if he has a common border with a corporeal being? The Manichean theologians were unable to answer these objections for they lacked their opponent’s philosophical training and had to defend a religious system based upon inherited Iranian mythology. In vain they tried to attack weak points in Christian dogmatics. Their position in the West was unfavorable, as they tried to teach Manicheism as the esoteric, true Christian doctrine; but in doing so they had recourse to Marcion’s thesis of falsification of Scriptures without being able to demonstrate the correctness of this allegation. They were on safer ground when trying to show—after Marcion—the great difference between the Old and the New Testament. Their argumentation here followed arguments Mani had taken over from Marcion. In their argumentation with Augustine the Manicheans relied on exegesis whereas Augustine was especially strong in his philosophical arguments. With sharp irony Augustine criticizes the Manichean pantheon as well as the rich mythology of the system. The Manichean myths appear to him as a collection of naive, absurd, and partly obscene fables. Here again his opponents were placed in an impossible situation because they were not able to give a satisfactory interpretation of the inherited myths. As to the founder Mani’s own position, Augustine underlines the fact that no Christian text mentions Mani as Apostle and still less as the promised Paraclete, a claim essential to his attitude vis-à-vis Christianity. Here again the Manicheans could only fall back on Mani’s own assertions. Even though the Manichean Fortunatus displayed great skill in his disputation with Augustine, the general impression is that the Manicheans were helpless against an opponent who possessed the same dogmatic knowledge of their religion as they themselves and who used all the methods dialectics could give him. Augustine’s attacks are, on the whole, not unfair but he shows no understanding of the great religious problem at the bottom of the system, namely the necessity to explain the existence and cause of evil. Augustine’s own solution that evil is only a privation of good, privatioboni, is dictated by his Neoplatonic position and is at least as difficult to justify as the Manichean position. On the whole, the nine years Augustine belonged to Manicheism, although leaving some traces in his Christian thinking, as is emphasized by some scholars (Baur, Harnack), influenced him much less strongly and deeply than Neoplatonism (see the summary given by Capelle).
For the study of Latin-speaking Manicheism Augustine remains an invaluable source, but it should always be remembered that the Manicheism he describes is not the original system as developed by Mani, but a later adaptation to Christianity. This fundamental fact is sometimes forgotten (e.g., by Decret). To Augustine himself it was always clear that Manicheism was a fabula persica (Contra Secundinum, chap. 2).
Bibliography:
Editions of Augustine’s works: J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursur completus, series Latina XXXII-XLVI, Sancti Aurelii Augustini . . . opera omnia, Paris, 1841-42.
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, distributed between vols. XII and LXXXV, Vienna, 1887-1974. Ed. and tr.
R. Jolivet and L. M. Jourjon, Oeuvres de Saint Augustin XVII (Bibliothèque Augustinienne): Six traités anti-Manichéens, Paris, 1961.
M. Dods, tr., The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo V: Writings in Connection with the Manichaean Heresy, Edinburgh, 1872.
Studies of Augustine and his relation to Manicheism: A. Adam, “Das Fortwirken des Manichaismus bei Augustin,” Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 69, 1958, pp. 1-25.
P. Alfaric, L’évolution intellectuelle de saint Augustin, Paris, 1918.
F. C. Baur, Das manichäische Religionssystem, Tübingen, 1831.
P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, Berkeley, 1969.
Idem, Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine, New York, 1972.
E. Buonaiuti, “Manichaeism and Augustine’s Idea of "Massa Perditionis",” Harvard Theological Review 20, 1927, pp. 117-27.
B. Capelle, “Augustinus,” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum I, Stuttgart, 1950, pp. 981-93.
P. Courcelle, Recherches sur les Confessions de saint Augustin, Paris, 1950.
F. Decret, Aspects du manichéisme dans l’Afrique romaine, Paris, 1970.
A. von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I, 5th ed., Tübingen, 1931.
J. P. de Menasce, “Augustin manichéen,” Freundesgabe für Ernst Robert Curtius, Berne, 1956, pp. 79-93.
Search terms:
اگوستین agustine
(G. Widengren)
Originally Published: December 15, 1987
Last Updated: August 17, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. III, Fasc. 1, pp. 27-28
Welcome to Encyclopaedia Iranica
The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a comprehensive research tool dedicated to the study of Iranian civilization in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinentiranicaonline.org
Indeed Augustine was almost 10 years a manichean gnostic who when converted wrote against it, only to readopt certain portions of it in later years
atpollard
Well-known member
Nope, we are already dead. We are slaves to sin. We run from God.Except no one is drowning
If we were merely drowning, we would have a chance of helping to save ourselves. As dead men freely choosing sin, we have no hope except the undeserved mercy of God to “remove our heart of stone and give us a new heart” (His description of the process, not mine).
Oh so a dead man is capable of doing something after all
Johnhowever shows dead men can read and believe and receive life
John 20:31 (KJV 1900) — 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John writes to dead men who are without life
he writes that dead men might believe
and that believing dead men might be made alive
atpollard
Well-known member
Do you know what this means?
You should look it up. It means that the author YOU quote wants his readers to remember that Augustine NEVER BELIEVED Manicheism was true, just an interesting fable. That is the opposite of the mark of a Gnostic.
atpollard
Well-known member
“To Augustine himself it was always clear that Manicheism was a fabula persica (Contra Secundinum, chap. 2).”
Go and learn what a “fabula persica” is … the answer is still “YOU ARE!”
atpollard
Well-known member
Read Ephesians 2 and you tell me.
atpollard
Well-known member
Not all dead men … John 6:44
civic
Well-known member
Adam who was “spiritually “dead hid from God in the garden and was able to communicate with God and understand Him. In the day you eat you shall surely die. So adam sinned and was spiritually dead and yet could communicate with God and understand God. “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” (Genesis 3:10)
Luke 16:27-31 -“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Above we see that Jesus declared the physical dead and spiritual dead can respond to spiritual things. The dead spiritual/physical dead man is pleading for his own brother’s life.
Jesus declares in John 5:25, “An hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”Here Jesus says the spiritually dead can and will hear him
In Mark 2:17 Jesus said, “"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." The sick/spiritually dead can hear and understand Jesus- the sinner who is dead in their sins can understand.
In Romans 1 we read of the spiritually dead that they can perceive God and that Gods handiwork is self-evident to them and that the things of God are clearly seen by them so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20- For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
Below we see Jesus tell the "spiritually dead " pharisees that they refuse to come to Jesus so that they can have/receive life.
This is the complete opposite of what some religions teach. Jesus lets those dead pharisees know if they come to Jesus they can have life just as John taught in John 1:12-13 and Jesus taught Nicodemus in John 3:16-18. Belief in Him always precedes life. As I have mentioned before this is consistent with Jesus teachings throughout the gospels. He said no less than 13 times that- YOUR FAITH has saved you, healed, you, made you well. Not the faith that He gave them , saved them. It was THEIR OWN FAITH THAT SAVED THEM. When one placed their faith in Him they will be saved, have life, be regenerate, receive eternal life, salvation. Those conditions are taught by all the apostles and writers of the N.T.
John 5
“I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
41 “I do not accept glory from human beings, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?
45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?
The result is our regeneration, life, salvation, eternal life, new birth, born again- all synonyms. Don't let anyone conflate them.
John 7:17
Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
Psalm 25:9
He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them His way.
Psalm 25:14
The LORD confides in those who fear Him, and reveals His covenant to them.
Acts 17:11-12
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
Acts 17:30-31
30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to everyone
so we can see from the above that salvation is for everyone and God commands everyone to repent.
Gods law is to bring one to repentance and reveal one sin.
The law reveals our sin and imperfections that brings one to humble themselves and repent . Out inability to do something God commands like be perfect does not mean we cannot admit our imperfections and inability to be perfect and to rely upon Him for our perfection and not on ones self righteousness. When one understands they cannot save themselves and relies upon God for their salvation they can and will be saved. Repenting is something we do, believing is something we do, saving is what God does. He commands everyone to repent and those who do will be saved. Salvation is for everyone and everyone can repent. God saves those who repent of their sins and believe the gospel. The teaching of Jesus and the publican demonstrates the above is true without regeneration preceding repentance and belief .
Below we read Paul is reasoning with the heathen Greeks and the unbelieving Jews as Corinth. So by using reasoning, logic and persuasion the Apostle converts many of the over the next couple of years. This is how apologetics are used to persuade unbelievers who can understand the scriptures when reasoned well by the Apologist.
Acts 18
After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, 3 and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
5 When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. 6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.
9 One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. 10 For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.” 11 So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.
12 While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment. 13 “This man,” they charged, “is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.”
14 Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, “If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. 15 But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things.” 16 So he drove them off. 17 Then the crowd there turned on Sosthenes the synagogue leader and beat him in front of the proconsul; and Gallio showed no concern whatever.
Acts 14:1
At Iconium, Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue, where they spoke so wellthat a great number of Jews and Greeks believed.
Acts 17:2
As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with themfrom the Scriptures,
Acts 18:19
When they reached Ephesus, Paul parted ways with Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue there and reasoned with the Jews.
Acts 19:26
Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
Matthew 16:15-17
He[Jesus]said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Luke 15:11-32
And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.
17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.
25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”
Now notice that the Son was the following :
A ) he was dead
B ) he was lost
So we have a dead son who was lost and on his own realized that he was better off as a slave back at his Fathers house. So as one who is dead he realized his lost state and was able to make his own decision to repent and return to his Fathers house and become a servant. This is the opposite of what Calvinists teach.
We know that Salvation is of the Lord . We know that the Father was not obligated to forgive and restore the son. The son recognized his sin and repented of it and his Father forgave and restored him. The son humbled himself, God didn't, the son repented, God didn't do that for him by granting it to him, the dead son returned home, the Father did not call him home. The Father restored the son after the son repented . Calvinists conflate Gods salvation( Savior ) and mans responsibility to humble themselves and repent of their sin.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
Let’s look at the uses of the term “DEAD” in the scripture for you to decide:
1) Jesus referred to the church in Sardis as “DEAD” and called them to “wake up” (Rev 3). Given Christ’s use of the idiomatic term “DEAD” in reference to this church, should we presume that his hearers cannot respond positively to Christ’s appeal in this passage as well?
2) The Prodigal was “DEAD/lost” then “alive/found” demonstrating that the term “DEAD” is idiomatic for “separated by rebellion” not “innate moral inability” (Luke 15:24).
3) “When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” – James 1:13-15
Are we born “DEAD” according to James? Or is DEATH birthed in those who sin after its “full grown?”
4) “What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.” – Romans 7:7-11
Are we born “DEAD” according to Paul? Or was it through the commandment, after “sin sprang to life” that DEATH came?
5) “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath…And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,” -Ephesians 2:1-3, 6
This passage says nothing about how or when they died, nor does it relate their condition to any type of innate moral inability.
It does say God raised them up with Christ. Is this meant to represent the special inner work of regeneration which effectually causes them to believe after they are raised up? Let’s observe what else Paul says about being raised up in Christ.
“In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which *you were also raised up with Him through faith* in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions” (Col. 2:11-13).
They were raised up THROUGH FAITH, not unto faith according to Paul.
Calvinists have the burden to produce just one clear biblical example of the term “DEAD” meaning “the moral incapacity to respond willingly to God from birth.”soteriology101
hope this helps !!!
atpollard
Well-known member
God SOUGHT OUT Adam … Adam ran away and HID from God [Genesis 3:8]
That is not a recipe for “men choosing to come to God of their own free will” … that is a recipe for “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me” [John 6:44]
Are you ready to embrace the TRURH of scripture yet?
civic
Well-known member
I'm sorry your doctrine declares adam when he sinned was spiritually dead.
The facts prove otherwise as I have demonstrated
atpollard
Well-known member
What does Abraham reply to him?
[Luk 16:29-31 NLT]
"But Abraham said, 'Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read what they wrote.'
"The rich man replied, 'No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will repent of their sins and turn to God.'
"But Abraham said, 'If they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen even if someone rises from the dead.'"
NOTHING will convince sinful men to believe and repent. It requires an act of God! Men can plead, but they cannot change their dead heart … they cannot believe.
THAT is a gift from God [Ephesians 2:1-10]
atpollard
Well-known member
Not my doctrine, God’s judgement …
John 3:19-20 [NASB]
19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
What does God say?
What did Adam do?
