Did Augustine Corrupt The Church With Gnostic Doctrine?

[Benjamin]

Apparently you need to look up that word. And some things are not really debate material. Calling Calvinism Gnostic is itself an ad hominem

Ad Hominem in debate is definitely with one begins to attack his opponent (personally, character, etc...) rather than the issues up for debate. Your turning this debate into personal issues is a form of Ad Hominem, it is fallacy because these personal issues draws away the subject up for debate. By me even replying back to you about your personal issues it begins to cause a smokesceen which also which also takes away from the ethics in philosophical logical debate WHICH is to draw the truth out in an argument that has a specific focus (NOT PERSONAL)! THAT CAN"T BE DONE WHEN ONE HAS TO DEAL WITH YOUR PERSONAL ISSUES!!! Got it?

You happy now, or do want to continue with your fallacies WHICH have NOTHING to do with the subject other than YOUR personal problems that the subject OFFENDS YOU?!

Take a class in basic logic and critical thinking skills.

 

[Revmitchell]

No one has attacked anyone personally. For crying out loud cals are starting threads to belittle non cals and visa versa. This thread like others was not started to have legitimate debate. It was started to poke a finger in the eyes of cals. Both sides need to grow up and get over yourselves.

 

[Benjamin]

No one has attacked anyone personally. For crying out loud cals are starting threads to belittle non cals and visa versa. This thread like others was not started to have legitimate debate. It was started to poke a finger in the eyes of cals. Both sides need to grow up and get over yourselves.

Your still making this thread personal issues! This board is such a joke!

 

[Benjamin]

Anything that far back in regards to history, whether secular or religion, needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

How about your Bible?

People can always dig up info that "supports" their claim, or so they say. A Brother, I can't remember his username, but he used Louisana as him location, sent me a PM a couple years ago about how the Jesuits were behind making other versions of the bible and even aided in Lincoln's assasination. Then Brother DJA brings up the Jesuits again. I just push these to the side and let the bible be my guide, through the workings of the Spirit. No one is alive now when the likes of Polycarp and Augustine were, so who knows how accurate that history is?

I've seen guys into "higher criticism" stuff (we used to have one on this board - craigbythesea) that will attempt to discount the meanings in the bible (basically any of them) based on never-ending historical documents and issues. If you listen to them there will come a time when you've got to look at that Bible in your hand and ask yourself, "Do I believe God preserved His Word so that I can know His Truth, or not?

That said, do you believe the quotes that we have from our church fathers are falsified? No truth to them? What does the Bible say about our guidance from our church fathers? Is this true or not?

 

[Benjamin]

The premise of the thread and, especially, the video is hopelessly and historically flawed.

Here, for a counterpoint, are two links which have substantial quotes from those Morrell claims to speak for:

http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/refutation-of-jesse-morrells.html

http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/02/refutation-of-jesse-morrells.html

It is always important to investigate one's claims about anything. This is why, by the way, serious people cite their sources--so that conclusions and arguments can be properly evaluated.

Most Calvinistic Baptists I know of are merely pointed to the text of Scripture by Calvin. This is one reason we reject his arguments on paedobaptism among other things.

The anti-Calvinists curse us Calvinists for following Calvin the man uncritically. Unfortunately, this thread is a perfect example of the anti-Calvinists swallowing this spilth lock, stock, and barrel without engaging even one brain cell to evaluate Morrell's claims. The whole thing is just so callow. It really is astounding.

The Archangel

From the first link they went right into calling him being a Pelagian, a bunch of meaningless rhetoric, then into the councils that condemned Pelagianism, more rhetoric mixed with a lot of question begging. Quite boring actually. Finally something on Clement:

“All therefore are glorified and magnified, not by themselves or their own works of righteous actions, which they have wrought out, but by his will”

This does not discount Clement's view on free will in the least.

From there into higher criticism and basically trying to discount any authenticity of any of these quotes, with this, of course theyhave no quotes to counter with...

Very weak rebuttal so far...

Next they resort to start using Augustine's arguments against the church father's for a rebuttal against what they said...really??? And that somehow changes what they said??? Ridiculous...

The quotes they are giving are simply not refuting these church father's view on free will...they are question begging with them...

...not impressed...

 

[DrJamesAch]

From the first link they went right into calling him being a Pelagian, a bunch of meaningless rhetoric, then into the councils that condemned Pelagianism, more rhetoric mixed with a lot of question begging. Quite boring actually. Finally something on Clement:



This does not discount Clement's view on free will in the least.

From there into higher criticism and basically trying to discount any authenticity of any of these quotes, with this, of course theyhave no quotes to counter with...

Very weak rebuttal so far...not impressed...

Oh, but don't you know that since the evidence that proves the facts of the videos history would be wrong is because the Reformed article shows how Augustine was vindicated by the Roman Catholic council of Ephesus and Carthidge?

The entire article hangs it hat on juries of wolves hearing a case against sheep.

Also of worthy note is the article sites as an authority, noted ROMAN CATHOLIC APOLOGIST Bart Ehrman whom Calvinist apologist James White (isn't there a thread about him somewhere where the Calvie's on this board jumped all over his coat-tail) has debated on many of THESE VERY ISSUES and disagrees with him.

Thus not even Calvinist apologists agree with this CATHOLIC source, and the rest of the article is merely quoting the same sources that Ehrman MISQUOTES in his books, and a few quotes from Catholic apologists like Carol Harrison (who wrote another book about Augustine trying to link the NT church to his teachings to prove continuity in "Rethinking Augustine", the first book of hers I'd ever read).

It is amusing how often Calvinists punt to Roman Catholic historians when attempting to justify John Calvin's reliance on Augustine, but then distance themselves from Augustine and Calvin's views on murdering their enemies (of which those same councils Archangels article relies on was also responsible for approving of) and from the beliefs that they yet held consistent with the RCC.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Oh, but don't you know that since the evidence that proves the facts of the videos history would be wrong is because the Reformed article shows how Augustine was vindicated by the Roman Catholic council of Ephesus and Carthidge?

The entire article hangs it hat on juries of wolves hearing a case against sheep.

Also of worthy note is the article sites as an authority, noted ROMAN CATHOLIC APOLOGIST Bart Ehrman whom Calvinist apologist James White (isn't there a thread about him somewhere where the Calvie's on this board jumped all over his coat-tail) has debated on many of THESE VERY ISSUES and disagrees with him.

Thus not even Calvinist apologists agree with this CATHOLIC source, and the rest of the article is merely quoting the same sources that Ehrman MISQUOTES in his books, and a few quotes from Catholic apologists like Carol Harrison (who wrote another book about Augustine trying to link the NT church to his teachings to prove continuity in "Rethinking Augustine", the first book of hers I'd ever read).

It is amusing how often Calvinists punt to Roman Catholic historians when attempting to justify John Calvin's reliance on Augustine, but then distance themselves from Augustine and Calvin's views on murdering their enemies (of which those same councils Archangels article relies on was also responsible for approving of) and from the beliefs that they yet held consistent with the RCC.

The quotes used in these articles also merely repeat what many Christians believe anyway about predestination and election. The Calvinists, since they presuppose that predestination and election are CALVINIST terms instead of BIBLICAL terms, presuppose that early churches taught these doctrines in the SAME WAY that they are explained in the Confessions simply because the words "predestined" or "election" are found in the quotes. What you do NOT find is any explication of said quotes that agree with the Calvinist definitions of these doctrines.

Another fallacy that the author commits is category error where in refuting Ignatius, he punts to FF Bruce and Eerdman's views on Acts 1. The issue isn't about a debate over Acts 1, it's whether or not Ignatius as an early church "father" HISTORICALLY taught views opposed to Augustine and Calvin.

The article is a very poor apologetic for the authors view.

 

[Robert Snow]

Exposing the false doctrine of Calvinism is like turning on a light in a room full of roaches.

 

[InTheLight]

Exposing the false doctrine of Calvinism is like turning on a light in a room full of roaches.

All right! Saving this to my potential signature file.

 

[Rippon]

Exposing the false doctrine of Calvinism is like turning on a light in a room full of roaches.

Very unedifying of you RS. Your drive-by mo is very cowardly.

 

[Robert Snow]

Very unedifying of you RS. Your drive-by mo is very cowardly.

Ouch, my posting must have hurt. And just who are you to call some cowardly? I said what I believe. A coward would post what other want to see.