What Does “Another Gospel” Mean?

civic said:
yes he takes the same position of Jacob Arminius that both he and calvin got from augustine.
Click to expand...

False.

Genetic fallacy.

We've been over this before.

Dizerner

Thread 'Putting to death the "pagan" and "gnostic" genetic fallacy.'

This is a bad argument, linking something back to a pagan belief or practice and claiming it proves it is somehow bad.

It is called a genetic fallacy because one is making an assertion that mere association or correlation equals causation.


Along with something being "gnostic," which is a similar specific kind of pagan genre of cult, these terms are all to often used as a generic catch all to make a view "look bad."

You can link almost anything back to some concept or idea in paganism and gnosticism if you work hard enough, and these are extremely broad concepts.


I personally reject...
  • Like
 
This renown calvinist was smart enough to know his church history with the origin of doctrines.

Here is the renown Calvinist Lorraine Boettner :

It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God's absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect.

same with RC

From R.C. Sproul:

“It has been said that all of Western theology is a footnote to the work of Augustine. This is because no other writer, with the exception of the biblical authors, has had more influence on Christendom. Thomas Aquinas quoted Augustine heavily when he composed his Summa Theologica. When Martin Luther and John Calvin were accused of teaching new doctrine, they pointed to Augustine as an example of one who had taught the things they were teaching… His Confessions is one of the most important autobiographies ever written.”


my conclusion:
Calvin references augustine in his writings over 4,000 times. :) That was his mentor, guide, leader, influencer whom he closely followed in his writings/teachings/doctrines. Calvin was a disciple of augustine. No ifs ands or buts about it those are the facts.

As RC says augustine is the father of determinism. No augustine, no reformation. :)
 
Jesus Incarnation disproves total depravity and a fallen sin nature.

πᾶσα σάρξ (in imitation of the Hebrew כָּל־בָּשָׂר (Winers Grammar, 33)), every lving creature, 1 Peter 1:24; with οὐ preceding (qualifying the verb (Winers Grammar, § 26, 1; Buttmann, 121 (106))), no living creature, Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20; specifically, a man (ἄνθρωπος for בָּשָׂר, Genesis 6:13), generally with a suggestion of weakness, frailty, mortality: Sir. 28:5; ἐν τῷ Θεῷ ἤλπισα, οὐ φοβηθήσομαι τί ποιήσει μοι σάρξ, Psalm 55:5 (); cf. Jeremiah 17:5; ἐμνήσθη, ὅτι σάρξ εἰσιν, Psalm 77:39 (); σάρξ καί αἷμα, Ephesians 6:12; γενεά σαρκός καί αἵματος, ἡ μέν τελευτᾷ, ἑτέρα δέ γεννᾶται, Sir. 14:18; ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο, entered into participation in human nature, John 1:14 (the apostle used σάρξ, not ἄνθρωπος, apparently in order to indicate that he who possessed supreme majesty did not shrink from union with extreme weakness); εὑρίσκειν τί κατά σάρκα, to attain to anything after the manner of a (weak) man, i. e. by the use of merely human powers, Romans 4:1 (for substance equivalent to ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 4:2); Hebraistically (see above), πᾶσα σάρξ, all men, Luke 3:6; John 17:2 (Winer's Grammar, § 30, 1 a.); Acts 2:17; Sir. 45:4; with οὐ or μή preceding (qualifying the verb (Winers Grammar, and Buttmann, as referred to above)), no man, no mortal, Romans 3:20; 1 Corinthians 1:29; Galatians 2:16. man as he appears, such as he presents himself to view, man's external appearance and condition: κατά σάρκα κρίνειν, John 8:15 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 583 (542)) (equivalent to κρίνειν κατ' ὄψιν, John 7:24); γινώσκειν or εἰδέναι τινα κατά σάρκα, 2 Corinthians 5:16; οἱ κατά σάρκα κυρίου (see κατά, II. 3 b.), Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22. universally, human nature, the soul included: ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκός ἁμαρτίας, in a visible form, like human nature which is subject to sin, Romans 8:3 (cf. ὁμοίωμα, b.); ἐν σαρκί ἔρχεσθαι, to appear clothed in human nature, 1 John 4:2 and Rec. in 3; 2 John 1:7 (the Epistle of Barnabas 5, 10 [ET]); φανερουσθαι, 1 Timothy 3:16 (the Epistle of Barnabas 5, 6 [ET]; 6, 7 [ET]; 12, 10 [ET]); κεκοινωνηκεναι αἵματος καί σαρκός, Hebrews 2:14.

John 1:14- And the Word became flesh (sarx) and dwelled among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father full of grace and truth.

Hebrews 2- Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like them, k fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Above we see the Son through the Incarnation became sarx( flesh). Hebrews 2 says He shared that same flesh we have and was like us in every way.

So if Jesus came in the flesh ( John 1:1, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7) then His humanity disproves the sin nature misnomer many teach and believe or one must admit Jesus was born with a fallen corrupt sinful nature and thus born a sinner like all men are born sinners according to the doctrine of Original Sin and TD. ( Total Depravity )

conclusion : You see man in not born a sinner just like Jesus was not born a sinner. Jesus never sinned yet was born innocent like all men. We become sinners when we sin and become guilty of sin. This is why babies are innocent , not guilty until they sin.

1 John 3:4 " Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."

Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

Matthew 18:3, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

If children are born sinners as TD and original sin teaches then Jesus teaches that to be His disciples we must be corrupt like the little children which is an oxymoron.

The teaching above by Jesus, Ezekiel and John confirms this is true and original sin is not. One becomes a sinner when they sin and become guilty of that sin not before. Babies are born innocent, not guilty. There is no DNA gene making one a sinner that is folklore.

hope this helps !!!
 
Church history lesson for those who are willing to learn and be fact checked with their beliefs.

Augustine and Pelagius- the History of original sin.

Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin was born from his attempt to combat the heresy of Pelagianism. The controversy began in Rome when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s prayer: “Grant what you command, and command what you desire”. Pelagius was opposing the idea that the divine gift of grace was necessary to perform the will of God. Pelagius believed that if we are responsible for obeying the commandments of God, then we must all also have the ability to do so without divine aid. He went on to deny the doctrine of Ancestral Sin, arguing that the consequences of Adam’s sin are not passed on to the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin affected Adam alone, and thus infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall.

Augustine took a starkly different view of the Fall, arguing that mankind is utterly sinful and incapable of good. Augustine believed that the state of Original Sin leaves us in such a condition that we are unable to refrain from sin. The ‘image of God’ in man (i.e., free will) was destroyed by the Fall. As much as we may choose to do good, our evil impulses pervert our free will and compel us to do evil. Therefore we are totally dependent upon grace.

So far did Augustine take his grim view of the human condition, that he argued not only that the Original Sin effects all of Adam’s descendants, but that each person is guilty of the Original Sin from birth (Original Guilt). Infants are therefore guilty of sin and thus infants who die before baptism, in which (according to Augustine) the guilt of Original Sin is removed, are condemned to perdition and cannot be saved. As if that was not bad enough, Augustine went on to formulate the doctrine of Predestination, which affirms that God has foreordained who will be saved and who will not.

Augustine prevailed and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome at the Council of Carthage in 418. It seemed that Pelagius’ views were more reprehensible to the Latin Church than the idea of predestination and babies burning in hell – views that the Latin Church was not only willing to tolerate, but even willing to champion as Orthodox doctrine!


St John Chrysostom

Between Augustine and Pelagius there appeared to be no middle-way in the West. A different view, however, was expressed in the East by Augustine’s contemporary, John Chrysostom. The dispute between Augustine and Pelagius had not reached the East, and so Chrysostom’s views were not so agitated by heated disputes and polemics. Were Chrysostom involved in the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, perhaps his teaching on Ancestral Sin would have prevailed over both Pelagius and Augustine alike, but considering that the sole concern of the Latin Church seemed to be the condemnation of Pelagianism, it is probably more likely that he would have been condemned as semi-pelagian.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/#_edn1 Whatever the case, Chrysostom’s views on the subject have never enjoyed the attention they deserve, and the heated nature of the dispute in the West meant that the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ as expounded by Augustine was regarded as the only safeguard against the heresy of Pelagianism.

Chrysostom, while claiming that all human beings are made in the image of God, believed that the Ancestral Sin brought corruptibility and death not only to Adam but to all his descendants, weakening his ability to grow into God’s likeness, but never destroying God’s image (free will). Chrysostom is a major voice within a consensus of Greek patristic writers who interpret the Fall as “an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality”.[ii] Chrysostom’s position is echoed, for example, by St Athanasius the Great and St Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains intact. This Greek patristic interpretation is founded upon Romans 5:12: “As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned”[iii]. John Meyendorff explains how the deficient Latin translation of the text may have contributed to such a stark difference in the Latin interpretation of the Ancestral Sin:

‘In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek’.[iv]

St Cyril of Alexandria explained the passage in this way:

“How did many become sinners because of Adam?… How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (cf. Deut. 24:18) … we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruptibility and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam,… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in”.[v]


St John Cassian

The East paid little attention to Augustine, and this was largely due to language barriers. For the Eastern Christians, serious theologians wrote in Greek, and they paid little heed to Latin writers. What opposition did come from the East came from some Eastern Orthodox theologians who, for one reason or another, found themselves living in the West. Amongst the most prominent was St John Cassian. St John opposed Augustine on four major points:

1) There were clearly instances where people had come to God of their own volition, who, while called by Christ and aided by divine grace, chose to change their ways (e.g. Matthew, Paul, Zacchaeus). Therefore, it is not grace alone that saves us, but also man’s willingness to repent.

2) After the Fall, Adam and his descendants retained a knowledge of good, and an impulse, however weakened, to pursue good. Man was not, as Augustine claimed, utterly depraved and incapable of good after the Fall.

3) The ‘Image’ of God in man is sick, but not dead. The divine image is in need of healing, but this healing requires synergy (the co-operation of man’s will with divine grace).

4) God wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so those who are not saved reject salvation against His will. Predestination should be understood as foreknowledge and not as foreordination.

The West condemned St John Cassian’s views as semi-pelagian, but for the Orthodox, Cassian is one of the foremost exponents of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.[vi] His views were supported also by Theodoret of Antioch:

“There is need of both our efforts and divine aid. The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”.


The Ancestral Sin and Baptism


Augustine’s view of Original Sin was the reason also for his justification of infant baptism. Believing that babies are born guilty of sin, he argued that baptism was necessary for the babies’ salvation. He saw the innocence of infants purely in terms of their being physically too weak to commit sin, but equally guilty as adults of Adam’s sin.

The Greek Fathers, having a different view of the Fall and the Ancestral Sin, interpreted the purpose of infant baptism in another way, different in important respects from the familiar Augustinian and Reformed interpretations of the West. The Greek Fathers believed that newborn infants are innocents, wholly without sin. While infants inherit a human nature which, in its wholeness, is wounded by the Ancestral Sin, weakening the will and making each person prone to sin, they are innocent of sin nonetheless. In the fourth of his catechetical homilies on baptism, St John Chrysostom states, “We do baptise infants, although they are not guilty of any sins”. For the Greek Fathers, baptism, above all else, is an acceptance by the Church and entrance of the baptised person into the redeemed and sanctified Body of Christ, the beginning of a life spent in spiritual combat and instruction in holiness on the deepening journey to the Kingdom of God.

Considering the stark contrast between the Orthodox doctrine of the Ancestral Sin and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, and the different understanding of baptism that these doctrines lead to, is it not surprising that some Orthodox speak of baptism in Augustinian terms – of the forgiveness of Original Sin – especially considering that the Orthodox service for baptism makes not a single reference to it? The closest we come to mention of the Ancestral Sin (Πρωπατρορικό ἁμάρτημα) in baptism is in the first prayer of the Service for the Making of a Catechumen (which was originally completely separate from the service of Baptism): “Remove far from him/her that ancient error” (παλαιά πλάνη). If one of the main purposes of baptism was the forgiveness of Original Sin, surely it would be worth mentioning in the baptism service! But the idea of ‘Original Sin’ being “forgiven” is nowhere to be found in the Greek Fathers or in the hymns and prayers of the Orthodox Church. For it is an idea which is alien to Greek Patristic thought. The Ancestral Sin is a condition, primarily of mortality and corruptibility, which needs healing, an inherited ‘illness’ which means that free will – or ‘the Image of God’ as the Greek Fathers preferred to put it – though kept intact, is in need of divine grace in order to progress along the path to attaining God’s ‘likeness’, the path to theosis or ‘deification’.


Bearing in mind the significant differences between the Orthodox and the Augustinian views of ‘Original Sin’, it surprises me that some Orthodox Christians are so quick to employ the term, claiming that the Orthodox Church holds to the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’, and qualifying this simply by saying that it does not embrace the doctrine of ‘Original Guilt’. I do not think that this is adequate for expounding the Orthodox position on Original Sin. Although Augustine was recognised as a saint by the Orthodox Church,[vii] it has never accepted his teaching on Original Sin. If what I have written above is correct, then the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is wholly un-Orthodox, and it led, I believe, to a whole series of heresies in the Latin Church, such as Predestination, Purgatory, Limbo and the Immaculate Conception. We Orthodox would do well to distance ourselves from the well-known Augustinian position on Original Sin by employing a less familiar term: Ancestral Sin. It is not merely a case of semantics. For an erroneous understanding of this doctrine has serious repercussions for our understanding of sin and the Fall, for grace and free will, for baptism, the human condition and man’s deification. In short, how we understand the Ancestral Sin has direct implications for our whole soteriology – our understanding of the salvation of man and the world.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
yes he takes the same position of Jacob Arminius that both he and calvin got from augustine.
Click to expand...
So this is correct brother?

Jacob Arminius did not directly derive his theology from Augustine, although there are some areas of overlap, especially concerning human free will and divine grace. Arminius, a 16th-century Dutch theologian, is often considered the founder of Arminianism, a theological system that emphasizes conditional election, free will, and the possibility of falling from grace.

Theological Influence of Augustine on Arminius:
Arminius was well-versed in the works of Augustine, and he engaged with Augustine's writings on predestination and grace. Augustine's views on original sin, grace, and predestination were foundational to Western Christian thought. However, Augustine’s theology, particularly his doctrine of predestination, leaned more heavily toward what would later be called Calvinism—namely, an unconditional election and a monergistic view of salvation (where God alone initiates and sustains salvation).

Arminius, on the other hand, disagreed with Augustine's more deterministic views on salvation. While Augustine stressed that human will is entirely enslaved by sin and that God's grace is irresistible (the basis for his view of predestination), Arminius argued for human freedom in response to God's grace. He believed that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of human choices, a more synergistic view where both God's grace and human will cooperate in the process of salvation.

The Key Differences:
Predestination:

Augustine: Predestination is unconditional and based solely on God's sovereign will. The elect are chosen by God without regard to any foreseen merit or action.
Arminius: Predestination is conditional upon faith in Christ, meaning God predestines those whom He foreknows will freely choose to believe.
Grace:

Augustine: Grace is irresistible and God's sovereign action alone leads to salvation.
Arminius: Grace is resistible, and human beings have the ability to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation.
Free Will:

Augustine: Believed that free will was seriously impaired by original sin and that grace is required for salvation.
Arminius: Believed in a restoration of free will by prevenient grace, meaning that while sin affects human nature, God’s grace enables individuals to respond to Him.
Influence of Other Sources:
While Augustine’s ideas on grace and predestination certainly influenced Arminius, Arminius was also influenced by other theological sources. His ideas were shaped by his readings of the Bible, the works of the early church fathers (including Pelagius in opposition to Augustine), and by Reformation theology—especially the debates surrounding Luther and Calvin. Arminius did not accept the deterministic interpretations of Calvinism, which led to his divergence from Augustine’s position.

Thus, while there is some overlap between Augustine's theology and Arminius's views—particularly concerning the necessity of grace and the fallenness of humanity—Arminius did not simply adopt Augustine's theology. His views represent a distinct development, emphasizing human responsibility and the role of free will in salvation, which set him apart from Augustine’s more monergistic (one-sided) approach.

Arminius, Calvin, Augustine and L. Flowers ALL incorrect @civic?

J.
 
civic said:
"Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in."
Click to expand...

Good stuff here.
 
Johann said:
So this is correct brother?

Jacob Arminius did not directly derive his theology from Augustine, although there are some areas of overlap, especially concerning human free will and divine grace. Arminius, a 16th-century Dutch theologian, is often considered the founder of Arminianism, a theological system that emphasizes conditional election, free will, and the possibility of falling from grace.

Theological Influence of Augustine on Arminius:
Arminius was well-versed in the works of Augustine, and he engaged with Augustine's writings on predestination and grace. Augustine's views on original sin, grace, and predestination were foundational to Western Christian thought. However, Augustine’s theology, particularly his doctrine of predestination, leaned more heavily toward what would later be called Calvinism—namely, an unconditional election and a monergistic view of salvation (where God alone initiates and sustains salvation).

Arminius, on the other hand, disagreed with Augustine's more deterministic views on salvation. While Augustine stressed that human will is entirely enslaved by sin and that God's grace is irresistible (the basis for his view of predestination), Arminius argued for human freedom in response to God's grace. He believed that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of human choices, a more synergistic view where both God's grace and human will cooperate in the process of salvation.

The Key Differences:
Predestination:

Augustine: Predestination is unconditional and based solely on God's sovereign will. The elect are chosen by God without regard to any foreseen merit or action.
Arminius: Predestination is conditional upon faith in Christ, meaning God predestines those whom He foreknows will freely choose to believe.
Grace:

Augustine: Grace is irresistible and God's sovereign action alone leads to salvation.
Arminius: Grace is resistible, and human beings have the ability to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation.
Free Will:

Augustine: Believed that free will was seriously impaired by original sin and that grace is required for salvation.
Arminius: Believed in a restoration of free will by prevenient grace, meaning that while sin affects human nature, God’s grace enables individuals to respond to Him.
Influence of Other Sources:
While Augustine’s ideas on grace and predestination certainly influenced Arminius, Arminius was also influenced by other theological sources. His ideas were shaped by his readings of the Bible, the works of the early church fathers (including Pelagius in opposition to Augustine), and by Reformation theology—especially the debates surrounding Luther and Calvin. Arminius did not accept the deterministic interpretations of Calvinism, which led to his divergence from Augustine’s position.

Thus, while there is some overlap between Augustine's theology and Arminius's views—particularly concerning the necessity of grace and the fallenness of humanity—Arminius did not simply adopt Augustine's theology. His views represent a distinct development, emphasizing human responsibility and the role of free will in salvation, which set him apart from Augustine’s more monergistic (one-sided) approach.

Arminius, Calvin, Augustine and L. Flowers ALL incorrect @civic?

J.
Click to expand...
yes both he and calvin got their total depravity and sin nature from augustine but arminius rejected most of calvin and augustines other doctrines on predestination, election just to name a few.
 
Johann said:
Arminius, Calvin, Augustine and L. Flowers ALL incorrect @civic?
Click to expand...

He hasn't read any of the original writings or studied any of it.

He just parrots what he hears people like Warren McGrew said, who also didn't read or study the original writings.

They are addicted to the genetic fallacy and make connections anywhere they want to create a boogeyman fallacy.
 
civic said:
yes both he and calvin got their total depravity and sin nature from augustine but arminius rejected most of calvin and augustines other doctrines on predestination, election just to name a few.
Click to expand...
Here is what I believe-

Eph 1:9 He has made known to us the secret of His will, which is in accordance with His purpose which He planned in Christ,
Eph 1:10 so that, at the coming of the climax of the ages, everything in heaven and on earth should be unified through Christ,
Eph 1:11 in union with whom we were made God's portion, since we had been foreordained in accordance with the purpose of Him who in everything carries out the plan of His will,
Eph 1:12 that we who had first put our hope in Christ might praise His glory.
Eph 1:13 You too, as you have heard the message of the truth, the good news that means your salvation, and as you have trusted in Him too, have been stamped with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit,
Eph 1:14 who is the first installment of our inheritance, so that we may finally come into full possession of the prize of redemption, and praise His glory for it.

Can't go wrong here.

Johann.
 
Johann said:
So this is correct brother?

Jacob Arminius did not directly derive his theology from Augustine, although there are some areas of overlap, especially concerning human free will and divine grace. Arminius, a 16th-century Dutch theologian, is often considered the founder of Arminianism, a theological system that emphasizes conditional election, free will, and the possibility of falling from grace.

Theological Influence of Augustine on Arminius:
Arminius was well-versed in the works of Augustine, and he engaged with Augustine's writings on predestination and grace. Augustine's views on original sin, grace, and predestination were foundational to Western Christian thought. However, Augustine’s theology, particularly his doctrine of predestination, leaned more heavily toward what would later be called Calvinism—namely, an unconditional election and a monergistic view of salvation (where God alone initiates and sustains salvation).

Arminius, on the other hand, disagreed with Augustine's more deterministic views on salvation. While Augustine stressed that human will is entirely enslaved by sin and that God's grace is irresistible (the basis for his view of predestination), Arminius argued for human freedom in response to God's grace. He believed that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of human choices, a more synergistic view where both God's grace and human will cooperate in the process of salvation.

The Key Differences:
Predestination:

Augustine: Predestination is unconditional and based solely on God's sovereign will. The elect are chosen by God without regard to any foreseen merit or action.
Arminius: Predestination is conditional upon faith in Christ, meaning God predestines those whom He foreknows will freely choose to believe.
Grace:

Augustine: Grace is irresistible and God's sovereign action alone leads to salvation.
Arminius: Grace is resistible, and human beings have the ability to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation.
Free Will:

Augustine: Believed that free will was seriously impaired by original sin and that grace is required for salvation.
Arminius: Believed in a restoration of free will by prevenient grace, meaning that while sin affects human nature, God’s grace enables individuals to respond to Him.
Influence of Other Sources:
While Augustine’s ideas on grace and predestination certainly influenced Arminius, Arminius was also influenced by other theological sources. His ideas were shaped by his readings of the Bible, the works of the early church fathers (including Pelagius in opposition to Augustine), and by Reformation theology—especially the debates surrounding Luther and Calvin. Arminius did not accept the deterministic interpretations of Calvinism, which led to his divergence from Augustine’s position.

Thus, while there is some overlap between Augustine's theology and Arminius's views—particularly concerning the necessity of grace and the fallenness of humanity—Arminius did not simply adopt Augustine's theology. His views represent a distinct development, emphasizing human responsibility and the role of free will in salvation, which set him apart from Augustine’s more monergistic (one-sided) approach.

Arminius, Calvin, Augustine and L. Flowers ALL incorrect @civic?

J.
Click to expand...
not sure how you are lumping flowers in with calvin, augustine or arminius. Can you explain
 
civic said:
yes both he and calvin got their total depravity and sin nature from augustine but arminius rejected most of calvin and augustines other doctrines on predestination, election just to name a few.
Click to expand...
I have found that if one reads the bible for themselves they get their doctrine From HE who inspired said scriptures .
For those who have believed JESUS is the CHRIST from the heart , GOD IS WITH THEM my friend .
Never let a man fool us into believing its impossible to truly learn the scrips lest one learneth of them , their scholars or etc .
Cause i am here to tell us that is a lie .
What worries me most is where all this confusion has led many and is now leading the many to be as one . ONLY IT AINT
under GOD . Very very and very deceptive times we are living in my friend .
Do you realize how easy it is to clear things up , IF only people would refresh themselves in the scriptures
and read them , Without mens preferred lens of what they consider doctrine .
IF anyone finds this hard to beleive then i give us a challenge
IF our desire is to truly Learn of GOD and we begin TODAY , right now ,
to again read the bible for ourselves , YOU watch how easily , in time , A LOT of things could have easily been cleared up .
I know this cause i also read the bible with others . And we sure dont strive and fight over Squat .
WE just enjoy to read the bible . ITs that easy my friend . Let no man allow man to make things complicated and confusing
rather let all who name the name of CHRIST just simply start over IN the Bible for themselves .s
 
Dizerner said:
He hasn't read any of the original writings or studied any of it.

He just parrots what he hears people like Warren McGrew said, who also didn't read or study the original writings.

They are addicted to the genetic fallacy and make connections anywhere they want to create a boogeyman fallacy.
Click to expand...
like you haven't studied the original biblical languages. so you have no voice when it comes to scripture by your own logic and reasoning.

and btw I hace calvins institutes.

next........
 
Dizerner said:
He hasn't read any of the original writings or studied any of it.

He just parrots what he hears people like Warren McGrew said, who also didn't read or study the original writings.

They are addicted to the genetic fallacy and make connections anywhere they want to create a boogeyman fallacy.
Click to expand...
By "original writings," are you referring to the Early Church Fathers? @Dizerner

Let's keep this civil and courteous.

J.
 
civic said:
not sure how you are lumping flowers in with calvin, augustine or arminius. Can you explain
Click to expand...
May i make a suggestion . I seen the word flowers in your sentence .
I say lets all go ahead and bury their doctrines , put flowers on the graves of men , AND NEVER LOOK back
and start afresh in the bible for ourselves . YOU watch what happens . Just enjoy it . Just enjoy to read it for oneself .
Watch what happens . JESUS really IS with the sheep and HIS doctrine is not confusing or twisted to a sheep .
For a sheep simply beleives what is written and in time , as they read more and more , the understanding cometh .
 
TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY said:
I have found that if one reads the bible for themselves they get their doctrine From HE who inspired said scriptures .
For those who have believed JESUS is the CHRIST from the heart , GOD IS WITH THEM my friend .
Never let a man fool us into believing its impossible to truly learn the scrips lest one learneth of them , their scholars or etc .
Cause i am here to tell us that is a lie .
What worries me most is where all this confusion has led many and is now leading the many to be as one . ONLY IT AINT
under GOD . Very very and very deceptive times we are living in my friend .
Do you realize how easy it is to clear things up , IF only people would refresh themselves in the scriptures
and read them , Without mens preferred lens of what they consider doctrine .
IF anyone finds this hard to beleive then i give us a challenge
IF our desire is to truly Learn of GOD and we begin TODAY , right now ,
to again read the bible for ourselves , YOU watch how easily , in time , A LOT of things could have easily been cleared up .
I know this cause i also read the bible with others . And we sure dont strive and fight over Squat .
WE just enjoy to read the bible . ITs that easy my friend . Let no man allow man to make things complicated and confusing
rather let all who name the name of CHRIST just simply start over IN the Bible for themselves .s
Click to expand...
yes online is a different animal from real life in our small home groups and mens discipleship groups. There is no fighting /arguing over doctrines and when someone has a different pov we just share it. There is correction that takes place with essentials but not the non essentials.

In the essentials unity
in the non essentials liberty
in all things charity.
 
civic said:
yes online is a different animal from real life in our small home groups and mens discipleship groups. There is no fighting /arguing over doctrines and when someone has a different pov we just share it. There is correction that takes place with essentials but not the non essentials.

In the essentials unity
in the non essentials liberty
in all things charity.
Click to expand...
That is the thing , for us who have read the bible together None of us has a different POV .
Isnt that something beautiful indeed .
POV often cometh of emotions and mens pre learned doctrines .
THIS is why i said we should just read the bible together .
Now on the sites many have learned of men , while some of it was true , SOME was not true , some very deadly
errors . And always remember error will not travel alone its buddy leaven will bring more leaven .
One thing i do want us all to understand is
Its not our POV that matters . ITS THE POG and VOG that alone matters . POINT OF GOD , VIEW OF GOD .
this church age , years back began this ring around the circle
and boy was it a deadly mistake .
I watched it occur way back in early nineteen hundred and nintey nine .
I caught it by chance when i had went into a church to visit this girl .
As i waited for her i saw a study group doing questoins and answers . FRIEND IT WAS DEADLY what i seen .
A man was going around this group asking each one HOW they viewed the scripture reading HE had did .
As each one answered he said , Good job , and things like wow i never seen it that way .
THE PROBLEM WAS their answers , some of the answers were dead wrong
and some of their answers even contradicted the other one answers . They were trying to make everyone FEEL WELCOME
like his or her opinoin matters . THAT WAS A HUGE mistake . Now today
as a result we have Oh that is just your opinoin , mine is different , BUT LETS HUG ANYWAY , it dont mattter
AND WORSE and worse it gets . GOD should have been the one exalted above humanity
and not rather humanity being pandered too so as it can feel loved and accepted . ITS WHY WE have this mess today .
 

Similar threads

Complete
'The Gospel of Peace' (Eph. 6:15)
Replies
4
Views
32
Complete
Complete
P
The false Gospel that the Jewish religion is the "root" of the vine.......
Replies
19
Views
64
praise_yeshua
P
MTMattie
The faith of Jesus Christ versus the faith of man
Replies
11
Views
118
Soyeong
S
T
John Piper: Born again through faith in the gospel
2 3
Replies
54
Views
798
Presby02
P
Johann
The Quran denies the crucifixion of Jesus.
Replies
1
Views
117
Titus
Titus
Back
Top Bottom