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

[JesusFan]

Wasn't he the MOST influencial Theologian of all time, at least in the Western Church?

Would he actually be cosidered as being "first Calvanist?"

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Wasn't he the MOST influencial Theologian of all time, at least in the Western Church?

Would he actually be cosidered as being "first Calvanist?"

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.

 

[glfredrick]

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?

 

[Van]

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.

 

[glfredrick]

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?

 

[webdog]

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

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.

 

[webdog]

Are you suggesting that you are a corrective for Augustine?

Are you suggesting Augustine should be compared to Christ?

 

[JesusFan]

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?

Wasn't Augustine first major writer to emphasise that we are in original Sin, have a depraived/fallen nature, and are saved by an electing act of God to apply grace towards us?

That is why asking if he would be seen as being "father" of what later became developed under Calvin and others "Calvinism"..

And I do tend to thinkk that there IS a central main Biblical Theology that is self contained within the Bible, core essentals ALL of us must agree upon, but when they got "fleshed out" when we decided to "fill in the added details"
Like Second Coming/baptism/Election/Free Will etc

Each major theological point has a basis/found within the core theology of the Bible, but once we subdivide into when is second coming? its stages? Covenant/Dispensalism? Gifts/no Gifts etc

That is when we do enter in "Built upon teachings of men"
NOT saying they are wrong, its just that once we leave the Core theology of Bible texts, than it is a matter of just how we view the Bible, which lens so to speaking reading it thru!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Id add Christ followed by Paul

 

[preachinjesus]

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

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

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

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.

 

[Ed B]

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.

 

[glfredrick]

Are you suggesting Augustine should be compared to Christ?

No where did I even remotely suggest this...

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

 

[glfredrick]

Wasn't Augustine first major writer to emphasise that we are in original Sin, have a depraived/fallen nature, and are saved by an electing act of God to apply grace towards us?

That is why asking if he would be seen as being "father" of what later became developed under Calvin and others "Calvinism"..

And I do tend to thinkk that there IS a central main Biblical Theology that is self contained within the Bible, core essentals ALL of us must agree upon, but when they got "fleshed out" when we decided to "fill in the added details"
Like Second Coming/baptism/Election/Free Will etc

Each major theological point has a basis/found within the core theology of the Bible, but once we subdivide into when is second coming? its stages? Covenant/Dispensalism? Gifts/no Gifts etc

That is when we do enter in "Built upon teachings of men"
NOT saying they are wrong, its just that once we leave the Core theology of Bible texts, than it is a matter of just how we view the Bible, which lens so to speaking reading it thru!

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.

 

[webdog]

No where did I even remotely suggest this...

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

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?

 

[glfredrick]

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.

 

[webdog]

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Was addressing the writers though who would be intrepreting what was written in Bible later on...
Point here is that THOSE writers of the sacred writ were inspired by Holy Spirit, so their ontepretations would be fully canon, not so the theologies of men after them...
The plain Core Theology from those men would comprise/make up the Truth of the Christian Theology that all agree to/adhere to, for theirs is FULLY accurate...
After them, we have to discern the Augustine, Calvins, Boice, Spurgeon etc of the World...



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.

just stating that sometimes it feels that BOTH sides of every major debate in Christiandom points to theur particular writer calvin/Luthor/Boice/Hodge etc to prove the point of their theology..
Once we get awat from Core thrology from Bible, as along as we realise all of the people we use and quote are fallible...

DO believe in Reformed say over Free will, but cannot quote my pet theologian and say "there you go".. Think that it fits biblical evidence better, but am willing to say does not mean Reformed way to view is "only/best" way...

Just trying to present the case that we all see the Bible in a different way, some closer to the "real truth", but that no one would have "final word" regarding how to intrepret the Theologies in the Bible!

 

[Van]

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.

 

[glfredrick]

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:

2 Thessalonians 2:13 tells us we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. That is what it says.

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,

we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth.

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):

The following important things are affirmed or implied here:

(1) That God had chosen or elected them (ειεἴλατο heileto [= "elected"]) to salvation. The doctrine of election, therefore, is true.

(2) that this was from "the beginning" (ἀπ’ ἀρχης an arches); that is, from eternity; see the John 1:1 note; Ephesians 1:4; Ephesians 3:9-11 notes. The doctrine of eternal election is, therefore, true.

(3) that this was the choice of the persons to whom Paul referred. The doctrine of personal election is, therefore, true.

(4) that this is a reason for thanksgiving. Why should it not be? Can there be any higher ground of praise or gratitude than that God has chosen us to be eternally holy and happy, and that he has from eternity designed that we should be so? Whatever, therefore, may be the feelings with which those who are not chosen to salvation, regard this doctrine, it is clear that those who have evidence that they are chosen should make it a subject of grateful praise. They can have no more exalted source of gratitude than that they are chosen to eternal life.

Through sanctification of the Spirit - Being made holy by the Divine Spirit. It is not without respect to character, but it is a choice to holiness and then to salvation. No one can have evidence that he is chosen to salvation except as he has evidence that he is sanctified by the Spirit; see the notes on Ephesians 1:4.

And belief of the truth - In connection with believing the truth. No one who is not a believer in the truth can have evidence that God has chosen him.

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

Hath chosen (εἵλατο)

The only case in N.T. in which this word is used of God's election. lxx, Deuteronomy 26:18, of God's choosing Israel to be his peculiar people. Comp. Philippians 1:22; Hebrews 11:25.

From the beginning (ἀπ' ἀρχῆς)

Not elsewhere in Paul. His usual expressions are πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων before the ages (1 Corinthians 2:7): πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4): ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων from the ages (Ephesians 3:9). Before eternal times (πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων) is found 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2.

Matthew Henry:

2:13-15 When we hear of the apostacy of many, it is a great comfort and joy, that there is a remnant according to the election of grace, which does and shall persevere; especially we should rejoice, if we have reason to hope that we are of that number. The preservation of the saints, is because God loved them with an everlasting love, from the beginning of the world. The end and the means must not be separated. Faith and holiness must be joined together as well as holiness and happiness. The outward call of God is by the gospel; and this is rendered effectual by the inward working of the Spirit. The belief of the truth brings the sinner to rely on Christ, and so to love and obey him; it is sealed by the Holy Spirit upon his heart. We have no certain proof of any thing having been delivered by the apostles, more than what we find contained in the Holy Scriptures. Let us then stand fast in the doctrines taught by the apostles, and reject all additions, and vain traditions.

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