Is Augustine, Not Calvin, Regarded As "First of The Reformed?"

He is considered the first major deterministic theologian post apostolic times, indeed.

However, we must remember that Jesus Christ himself as well as all biblical authors were deterministic. So determinism is the revelation from God.

The basic line of theologians and notable pastors to study from the apostolic times to now are these:

Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Henry, Edwards, Hodge, Spurgeon, Warfield, Boettner, Van Til, Gerstner, Sproul, Mohler, Macarthur, Piper.

 

I agree...

The subtle attempt with the OP is to pin a certain theology on a man instead of on the Word of God from which it is derived. Men using the Word derive theologies from the Text. They do not derive theologies then seek out texts to "proof-text" their work -- or at least they ought not if they are true theologians -- for how else can we truly learn of God than in His revelation, the Word?

 

Was Christ Himself deterministic in all things or some things? Food for thought.

Is Augustine considered the "father" of the dark ages because he gave those in power scriptural support for compelling (think torture) their views.

Did he view scripture in light of Greek metaphysics?

With the insight of hindsight, Augustine got a lot of things right concerning the word of God, but he blundered also, and it is those mistakes that haunt us to this day.

 

Are you suggesting that you are a corrective for Augustine?

 

Augustine should not be compared to Christ when discussing determinism. You are placing your presupposed understanding of determinism onto our Lord, which could not be in greater error.

 

Are you suggesting Augustine should be compared to Christ?

 

Id add Christ followed by Paul

 

Shame on you for saying this. It is not the case.

Couple of things that might help out here.

1. Anselm, Aquinas, Henry (I assume Carl FH Henry), and Spurgeon are not determinists...I can argue most of those guys aren't too but let's save some time.

2. I have no clue how you can put Mohler, MacArthur, Gerstner, Boettner Piper, and Sproul in with guys like Edwards, Luther, Calvin, Augustine. Where is Herman Bavinck? Where is Berkouwer? Where is Kuyper? That list is terribly myopic.

 

Should John Wycliffe be added to the list? His theology might not be as well developed regarding the Doctrines of Grace but it seems to be there in the broader sense.

 

No where did I even remotely suggest this...

Up to your old divisive tricks again, huh? :BangHead:

 

In a word, no.

The first "major writer" that told us plainly that we were in "original sin" was God. Augustine read that in the Scriptures and further wrote about the issue based on what he read in Scripture. We would also include Paul, Peter, John, James, Luke, etc., in writing about original sin.

And, how is your proposal any different than "teaching of men"? Are you not doing likewise? Before you think that I'm on the attack, I'm really not. What I am pointing out is that ALL of us insert some theology over or around (as a framework) the text of the Scripture we read. It is virtually impossible to not do this. Starting with the English translation, that sort of work precedes anything else we derive by way of theology.

 

No, I just wanted to make a point by doing the exact same thing you do to me (and Jesus fan in this very thread) in your debate tactics. Don't like it much, huh? Us non-cal "no name" theologians can be pretty sneaky

Thanks for making my point for me in the above bolded....is that what you were after in your reply to Jesusfan? The irony is your reply to me is how I usually respond to you ("how did you get that from what I said") :laugh:

Originally Posted by glfredrick
Are you suggesting that you are a corrective for Augustine?

 

Webdog, your ability to take SOMEONE ELSE'S STATEMENT and twist it for some purpose of your own is outstanding. You may be the best I've seen apart from the New York Times writers.

How about letting Van SPEAK FOR HIMSELF -- and me as well. We'll all get along better.

 

Like I said...I was being facetious in making a point (one you obviously still cannot get), mimicking YOU and YOUR approach. Your commentary should be directed to the mirror.

 

So lets not kid ourselves, we really dont get along nor do we like each other.

 

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is why have not those of the reformed view, reformed their view to conform to God's word. Why would they rather use the tactics of the world, ad homenims, misrepresentations, evasions and absurdity to defend the indefensible. Have they so hardened their hearts by the practice of disparaging others that they cannot understand what does not conform to their man-made doctrines?

James 2:5 says and it is crystal, that God chose the poor of this world. To say what this means is God unconditionally chose folks who became poor during their lifetime misses the who argument that God does not show partially to those rich in the eyes of the world. Yet the fact was denied. It says it. Therefore, in my opinion there should be zero Calvinists who have looked at and prayerfully consider the ramification of this verse.

But here we are, receiving insults (such as we are up to our old divisive tricks) rather than presenting a sound alternate view.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 tells us we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. That is what it says. So what do the Calvinists do. They say even though salvation is in the inflected noun form, the real idea (out of the mind of men) is that salvation is based on the verb save and therefore the adverbial clause which includes "through faith in the truth" really applies to the imagined verb saved. I kid you not.

 

Van, in one post you say that God is sovereign. In another post you say that man has free will and that those who hold to God's sovereignty are not biblical whatsoever in their take on what God says.

I'm not sure you get to have both sides in this debate!

Let's look at the 2 Thess passage you cite above, for instance...

You say, and I quote:

First, that is NOT what that verse says!

I'll post it in multiple translations just so that you don't gig me on using one you dislike...


New International Version (©1984)
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

English Standard Version (©2001)
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

King James Bible
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

American King James Version
But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brothers beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

American Standard Version
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Darby Bible Translation
But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, that God has chosen you from the beginning to salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Young's Literal Translation
And we -- we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, that God did choose you from the beginning to salvation, in sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth,

Now, what does the verse ACTUALLY SAY:

Not,

but rather, (American King James Version)
But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brothers beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

You seem to miss the "God has from the beginning" part of the verse.

Then, you go off on a noun as carrying the weight of the passage, but that is rather faulty grammar. Nouns do not carry action. Verbs do.

The verb in this passage is "chosen." The subject of the passage is "God." God chose. The rest are descriptive clauses of the subject and verb.

Here is what Barnes Notes has to say (Barnes is an Arminian):

Vincent's Word Studies (on the Greek words above)

Matthew Henry:

Clearly, your own translation is faulty as is your understanding based on your personal faulty translation.