Did Augustine know his Bible?

[Michael Wrenn]

.

Unfortunately....I think this is too true, and that too many Baptists are forgetting how important this is. I truly fear when I hear so much about what is called (quite fallaciously) the "Historic" faith laugh: a laughable idea, as though anyone cares for the study of "History" now-a-days :laugh: ....This is NOT the way Baptists have learned to talk. This is not what makes us who we are. We have blurred too much the lines of distinction. We fail to comprehend too often what "Separation of Church and State" means....It means hateful persecutors like Luther and Calvin cannot utilize Political force and the threat of torture and/or death (see Michael Servetus) to demand concession to all their ideology and stifle freedom of thought.



Not for long we can't....wait and see. I got in trouble once for expressing similar concerns....I won't repeat them...but trust me, it's on the wind. You will NOT be authorized to disagree forever. "Soul freedom" is as forgotten as is the meaning of "Separation of Church and State"....You will be persecutted soon enough. I got in trouble once (on this board actually) for merely expressing concerns like this one before....
Personally, I think it is largely linked to the blurring of the lines between what is properly called the "Church" from a Universal definition which is defined as ANYONE who supposedly names the name of Jesus Christ and the "Local-Church-Only" view...which was once a more majority view amongst Baptists...but is no longer appreciated or understood. :tear:

The "Separation of Church-and-state" phrase in American History is from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association wherein he assured them that Baptists would be protected from the vicious blood-guiltiness of the likes of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli the much-worshipped Puritans, <----also blood-thirsty murderers and others of the "Historic Faith"....(so-called). There was always a trail of blood from those who cared neither for Rome herself...nor her corrupted off-spring....like oh.....the Puritans, and all other adherents of a "Church" based solely upon the acceptance of the sin of divorce and upon the bloody murder of actually regenerate men like Thomas Beckett....I wax long here...NVM.

An excellent and accurate post.

I think there is more support for soul freedom and church-state separation outside many Baptist bodies than within nowadays -- particularly the Established Church of the South, the SBC.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

About Augustine: There is nothing about him that I like or agree with. His pagan past deeply colored his view of the Christian faith. I don't find his beliefs to be scriptural.

 

[preachinjesus]

About Augustine: There is nothing about him that I like or agree with. His pagan past deeply colored his view of the Christian faith. I don't find his beliefs to be scriptural.

Really. Okay, let's talk this over. (Because I think this is unnecessarily general and overly condemning.)

What part of his Trinitarian conception (as proposed in De Trinitate) do you find unscriptural? Is it his explication of the economic Trinity? Or the willing subordination?

Then let's swing over to his theology proper. I get that some people criticize Augustine of being overly Platonic (or is it Neo-Platonic...hmmm, sometimes the critics can't distinguish.) So what part of his theology proper is unscriptural? What specifically in his conception of God the Father is unscriptural?

I guess we need then to go by the whole Christology thing. Maybe you can help me understand what parts of Augustine's discussion of the hypostatic union of are blatantly unscriptural. What parts of his Logos/Sarx Christology do you have a problem with? Maybe we can also take a gander at that whole issue of the nature of Christ's efficacy in the resurrection. Are there parts of that which are unscriptural too?

Finally, I mean we can go on but this might help keep our interaction within about 20 pages of content, I guess we should look at Augustine's soteriology. What parts of his soteriology are specifically unscriptural? What do you make of the whole nature of his atonement theory? How is that specifically unscriptural?

So I'll look forward to your reply. Because I don't find Augustine patently unscriptural in his theology. Instead I find him refreshingly biblical. One of the reasons I spent a considerable amount of time studying him in my doctoral studies was precisely because of the nature of his theology and its influence on western theology.

Anyhoo...I'll look forward to seeing how specifically unscriptural Augustine is in your estimation.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Really. Okay, let's talk this over. (Because I think this is unnecessarily general and overly condemning.)

What part of his Trinitarian conception (as proposed in De Trinitate) do you find unscriptural? Is it his explication of the economic Trinity? Or the willing subordination?

Then let's swing over to his theology proper. I get that some people criticize Augustine of being overly Platonic (or is it Neo-Platonic...hmmm, sometimes the critics can't distinguish.) So what part of his theology proper is unscriptural? What specifically in his conception of God the Father is unscriptural?

I guess we need then to go by the whole Christology thing. Maybe you can help me understand what parts of Augustine's discussion of the hypostatic union of are blatantly unscriptural. What parts of his Logos/Sarx Christology do you have a problem with? Maybe we can also take a gander at that whole issue of the nature of Christ's efficacy in the resurrection. Are there parts of that which are unscriptural too?

Finally, I mean we can go on but this might help keep our interaction within about 20 pages of content, I guess we should look at Augustine's soteriology. What parts of his soteriology are specifically unscriptural? What do you make of the whole nature of his atonement theory? How is that specifically unscriptural?

So I'll look forward to your reply. Because I don't find Augustine patently unscriptural in his theology. Instead I find him refreshingly biblical. One of the reasons I spent a considerable amount of time studying him in my doctoral studies was precisely because of the nature of his theology and its influence on western theology.

Anyhoo...I'll look forward to seeing how specifically unscriptural Augustine is in your estimation.

Since I don't wish to get to 20 pages of discussion, and since I have already spent considerable time in other threads discussing my objections to Augustine, I'll keep it short: It is the combination of Augustine's pagan past with his Latinized views which I detest. In fact, I am not a fan of the Latin Western Christianity that characterizes the RCC and its offspring, the Magisterial Protestant churches. This is a corrupted view of man, sin, atonement, and salvation. I prefer the New Testament, and the early Greek fathers, where they are in agreement with the New Testament. The Latin West has departed from apostolic teaching in its views of man, sin, atonement, and salvation. The Eastern church has preserved that teaching of the scriptures and earliest churches, and the Anabaptists rediscovered it.

 

[preachinjesus]

Well that's a nice statement but it lacks both specificity and depth.

Let's keep it simple then: what parts of Augustine's understanding of the Trinity are unbiblical?

I've studied the Anabaptists (a fascinatingly odd sect) and I don't see a recovery of eastern patristic thought. Rather I see an extension of Augustine, particularly his understanding of mankinds sinful condition. Please explicate your view more.

You're a good conversationalist (one of the same ones around here) so please take my words with kindness and just me trying to work out how you could make such a polemical statement as above. I've studied Augustine well and find him extraordinarily biblical for his time. I don't think the Platonic accusation is a bad as some think.

 

[asterisktom]

Really. Okay, let's talk this over. (Because I think this is unnecessarily general and overly condemning.)

What part of his Trinitarian conception (as proposed in De Trinitate) do you find unscriptural? Is it his explication of the economic Trinity? Or the willing subordination?

Then let's swing over to his theology proper. I get that some people criticize Augustine of being overly Platonic (or is it Neo-Platonic...hmmm, sometimes the critics can't distinguish.) So what part of his theology proper is unscriptural? What specifically in his conception of God the Father is unscriptural?

I guess we need then to go by the whole Christology thing. Maybe you can help me understand what parts of Augustine's discussion of the hypostatic union of are blatantly unscriptural. What parts of his Logos/Sarx Christology do you have a problem with? Maybe we can also take a gander at that whole issue of the nature of Christ's efficacy in the resurrection. Are there parts of that which are unscriptural too?

Finally, I mean we can go on but this might help keep our interaction within about 20 pages of content, I guess we should look at Augustine's soteriology. What parts of his soteriology are specifically unscriptural? What do you make of the whole nature of his atonement theory? How is that specifically unscriptural?

So I'll look forward to your reply. Because I don't find Augustine patently unscriptural in his theology. Instead I find him refreshingly biblical. One of the reasons I spent a considerable amount of time studying him in my doctoral studies was precisely because of the nature of his theology and its influence on western theology.

Anyhoo...I'll look forward to seeing how specifically unscriptural Augustine is in your estimation.

Good for you. I don't agree with all of what Augustine taught, but there is no doubt that he is one that one can benefit from. I also have spent much time in reading his works, especially his City of God and much of his anti-Pelagian works.

It is a general trend nowadays to slam Augustine as being a proto-Catholic (and there is some justification for the charges), but he also had one foot on Reformation soil, so to speak. In many areas he broke the soil, so that now we only have to contend with the clods.

One can't overlook that he was a man of his times, which is both a limitation and a benefit. And he never really knew Greek. Yet he thought long and hard - events forced him into this -on bedeviling topics that we now take for granted.

If we can now see farther than persons like him it is because we are standing on their shoulders, however ignorant we may be of the fact.

 

[OldRegular]

Since I don't wish to get to 20 pages of discussion, and since I have already spent considerable time in other threads discussing my objections to Augustine, I'll keep it short: It is the combination of Augustine's pagan past with his Latinized views which I detest. In fact, I am not a fan of the Latin Western Christianity that characterizes the RCC and its offspring, the Magisterial Protestant churches. This is a corrupted view of man, sin, atonement, and salvation. I prefer the New Testament, and the early Greek fathers, where they are in agreement with the New Testament. The Latin West has departed from apostolic teaching in its views of man, sin, atonement, and salvation. The Eastern church has preserved that teaching of the scriptures and earliest churches, and the Anabaptists rediscovered it.

Weren't the early Greek fathers regenerate pagans? In truth aren't all believers regenerate pagans?

 

[Van]

Augustine’s View of Election

Augustine in the following excerpt describes his acceptance of the Word of God as truth.

For though I took no pains to learn what he spake, but only to hear how he spake (for that empty care alone was left me, despairing of a way open for man to Thee); yet together with the words which I would choose, came also into my mind the things which I would refuse; for I could not separate them. And while I opened my heart to admit “how eloquently he spake,” there also entered “how truly he spake”; but this by degrees. (The Confessions, Book V, Chapter XIV)

Here we see that Augustine opened his own heart to admit something attractive about the Word of God, but gradually accepted the truth of the Word of God. No one comes to Jesus unless that Father, through his word, draws him. Unless we accept the truth of God, we will not be open to the gospel.

Next, Augustine describes the convicting effect of God’s Word.

It was pleasing in Thy sight to reform my deformities; and by inward goads didst Thou rouse me, that I should be ill at ease until Thou wert manifested to my inward sight. Thus, by secret hand of Thy medicining, was my swelling abated and the troubled and bedimmed eyesight of my mind by the smarting anointings of healthful sorrows was by day to day healed. (The Confessions, Book VII, Chapter VIII)

And finally, Augustine embraces Jesus, accepting the milk provided for his infant state.

And I sought a way of acquiring strength sufficient to enjoy Thee; but I found it not until I embraced that "mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," "who is over all, God blessed forever," calling unto me and saying, "I am the way, the truth and the life”…. (The Confessions, Book VII, Chapter XVIII)

In looking back upon this experience, Augustine points to election as follows:

Whatsoever persons are through the riches of divine grace exempted from the original sentence of condemnation are undoubtedly brought to hear the Gospel, and when hearing they are caused to believe it, and are made likewise to endure to the end in the faith which works by love. And should they at any time go astray, they are recovered and set right again.

In this passage, Augustine does not say how we are brought to hear the gospel, but in his own words above he was attracted by pride, he wanted to learn to be eloquent, and listened to the Word of God, accepting His truth. Paul wrote that some might be moved by jealousy to listen to the gospel. The Bible says our understanding of our sinful nature through the law leads us to Christ. No one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father.

Augustine, in “The Confessions” (Book II, Part 14) says that our perverted soul seeks both that which is not pure and that which is untainted. One we attain and one we do not. In conclusion, he asks rhetorically, “Could I like what I might not, only because I might not?” The Bible says no one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father and it seems Augustine was drawn by God’s perfection as revealed in His Word. To be compelled by the power of felicity, by our strivings for happiness, toward that which is good is to be compelled by a natural inclination of man, perverted as it may be.

In summary, from “The Confessions” (Book IX, Part 1) Augustine reflects upon his conversion, indicating that he was a sinner in deed, in word, and in will, but that his freewill was called forth for a moment, and he submitted his neck to the yoke of Christ. Then Christ reached down by his hand and tossed the torment of slavery to sin out – what sweetness. (It should be noted that Saint Augustine wrote this in praise of God upon the passing of his mother.)

Augustine thought that God was the author of our faith, based in part on 1 Corinthians 4:7 which says in part, “What do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” Going past the obvious, that God sent His Son to reveal His salvation and hence is the author of the information we accept as our faith, does it necessarily follow that our act of faith was given us, or might only our capacity to engage in an act of faith be what we received from God?

And how are we caused to believe? By the convicting power of the gospel.

Augustine, in rejecting the false doctrine that we are able to do good things and earn salvation, indicated that he believed that faith was given to some but not to others such that God predestined each individual salvation.

"Faith, therefore, from its beginning to its perfection is the gift of God. And that this gift is bestowed on some and not on others, who will deny but he who would fight against the most manifest testimonies of the Scripture? But why faith is not given to all ought not to concern the believer, who knows that all men by the sin of one came into just condemnation. But why God delivers one from condemnation and not another belongs to His inscrutable judgments. And 'His ways are past finding out.' And if it be investigated and inquired how it is that each receiver of faith is deemed of God worthy to receive such a gift, there are not wanting those who will say, 'It is by their human will.' But we say that it is by grace, or Divine predestination."

This is slightly off the mark. God does not consider us worthy of salvation because we hear the call of God. God does not consider us worthy because we respond to the call of God. God grants grace to those whose faith in Christ He credits as righteousness because that is His predestined plan. Whoever believes in Him, shall not perish but have eternal life.

Augustine thought “chosen in Him” meant we were chosen individually before the foundation of the world and hence our faith was predestined. But Augustine was wrong because we were chosen corporately in Him and not individually before the foundation of the world was laid. Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:20, and therefore anyone subsequently redeemed by Him, was chosen in Him before the foundation of the world as part of a foreseen corporate group, the body of Christ, the Church but not as foreseen individuals.

The question you should ask to discern individual election for salvation is what about when the Bible says God chose us, without adding “in Him”, which refers to our corporate election.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 says, “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, and it was for this that He called you through our gospel that you might gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

How did God choose you? What method did he establish from the beginning? Through sanctification by the Spirit, meaning God sets you apart by baptizing you into the body of Christ, and (2) by accepting your faith in the truth after calling you with the gospel.

Matthew 22:14 says, “For many are called but few are chosen.” Jesus was teaching, using the parable of the wedding guests, that some reject the gospel and so others must be invited, everyone that we can find. However, since some show up at the wedding not clothed in righteousness, having never been chosen based on faith, they miss out on grace and are tossed into the outer darkness. Clearly, the King looks at the response to the message and makes a judgment to either grant grace or punishment. This again reveals that we are chosen individually during our lifetime.

Mark 13:20 says that at the end of the age, “for the sake of the elect whom He chose” the days of tribulation shall be shorted. So here looking back from the end of time, the elect had been chosen individually, and not as an unrealized group in Christ.

Luke 18:7 indicates His elect (His chosen) cry out to Him, again fitting the pattern that when chosen is used without “in Christ” it indicates an individual choice during the lifetime of the believer.

1 Peter 1:1-2 says in part, “… who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood….”

Here we seen that we are chosen according the predetermined plan to put believers in Christ. And again, mirroring 1 Thess 2:13-14, we see that we are put (chosen individually) in Christ by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
Biblical election is a simple and straightforward doctrine once you set aside the inferences of such great men as Augustine and Calvin whose understanding of election was partially flawed.

 

[Bro. James]

Contemplating our navels on Mars Hill---a short kibbitz

Our biggest problem is our lack of understanding of the totality of our depravity--everything man has ever done and will ever do is dung without the imputed righteousness of Jesus. Of ourselves, we are unholy, unholy, unholy. The realization of this condition causes us to repent and turn to Jesus for salvation.

Adam knew about this: Gen. 3:15. He passed it to his sons. Abel believed; Cain did not. Cain worshipped God--Cain's way. That never works. We have many Cainites in the world today.

The Greek philosophers were not believers. This includes Plato and Aristotle. Their teachings still permeate Western religious thinking also including the latest Cosmology.

Jesus the Christ, Jehovah in the flesh, came into the world to die for the sins of many, sin debt no one could pay--because their blood was not innocent. Only Jesus, the Second Man Adam was qualified.

Jesus said He would build and keep His Church through the gates of Hades. He has kept His promise. The religious world has not a clue. Most of the religion in the world is not Christian. A sizeable portion of Christendom is not following Christ.

Now what? Are we ready?

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Van]

Atheists are fond of pointing out the many historical events of the Dark Ages, where in the name of Christianity, great inhumanity toward others was carried out.

But lets back up and ask, what caused the dark ages? Was it not the idea that the government should compel Christianity? Backing a step further, one can observe that nations with government compelled religion mark the most inhuman nations of all.

So the question that should arise in the minds of objective observers, does Christianity actually teach that the church should compel, vise persuade folks to adhere to biblical views?

In other words, are we jumping the gun, when we say Biblical Christianity is the cause of the many well documented injustices of the Dark Ages? What if we can find where an early church leader misunderstood and mischaracterized scripture, ushering in the dark ages.

Augustine was a great man of God, and his writings have inspired many students of the Bible. But he was not inspired and some of his understandings of biblical doctrine were mistaken. Which brings us to our text to consider.

Luke 14:23 says God desires folks to compel other folks. Now the Greek word translated as "compel" is "anagkazo" and means to cause someone to do something by force or persuasion. So Augustine, looking at just this verse, had what appeared to him to be a sound basis for thinking compulsion in the name of God was a good thing. But he was wrong. The 20/20 view of hindsight tells us that this assumption of Augustine ushered in the dark ages.

But let's go back to the verse and see if we can discern which meaning (compel by force, or compel by persuasion) was in view. In the parallel passage in Matthew, the verse (Matthew 22:9) says, "invite." Now the Greek word here is “kaleo” and means to call or invite. Therefore, to be consistent, one is compelled to conclude that Luke had entreat or persuade in view, and thus Augustine missed the mark.

In summary, while it is a valid observation that much medieval mayhem was carried out in the name of Christianity prior to the Reformation, it does not follow that actual biblical Christianity was the cause of the Dark Ages, but rather a mistaken view of biblical Christianity.

Reformed Theology is actually a relic of the Dark Ages, resting on the same mistaken view of God advocating compulsion rather than persuasion. Thus, according to Reformed Theology, God compels us by force to reject Christ in our fallen state, due to His imposition of Spiritual Inability, and then God compels by force the turning and trusting of His preselected Elect by His Irresistible Grace. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well that's a nice statement but it lacks both specificity and depth.

Let's keep it simple then: what parts of Augustine's understanding of the Trinity are unbiblical?

I've studied the Anabaptists (a fascinatingly odd sect) and I don't see a recovery of eastern patristic thought. Rather I see an extension of Augustine, particularly his understanding of mankinds sinful condition. Please explicate your view more.

You're a good conversationalist (one of the same ones around here) so please take my words with kindness and just me trying to work out how you could make such a polemical statement as above. I've studied Augustine well and find him extraordinarily biblical for his time. I don't think the Platonic accusation is a bad as some think.

Thank you for your kind words.

For now, I'll post links to some articles for your perusal:

http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/A86.html This Mennonite site has many good articles on Anabaptist theology.


http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?1170 Pay particular attention from "The Critical Difference" to the end of the article.

It is clear from these articles alone that the Anabaptists were much closer to Eastern than Western Christianity in their views of the atonement, for example, as diverse as they were. They were also much closer in other areas, too, as I have pointed out.

 

[preachinjesus]

Thanks for the links.

Okay, let's re-engage here. Since you've stated that Augustine, of the principal theologians whom we get our theology from, is both unbiblical and outright error-laden (strong claims) we need to focus on why you said this.

So let's answer my question from before: What parts of Augustine's Trinitarian theology are unbiblical and heretical?

I think that is pretty straightfoward and a good starting point.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Hmm... the Anabaptists were products of the same culture that Luther and Calvin were, and yet the Anabaptists resisted the state-church practice of murdering in the name of Jesus. You can't excuse the blood lust of the Magisterial Reformers by saying they were just products of the times.

I wish I'd written this!

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>So let's answer my question from before: What parts of Augustine's Trinitarian theolgoy are unbiblical and heretical?<snip>

I've heard similar arguments from Catholic apologists who claim teaching infallibility for the Popes though other types of sin are simply human.

In answer though, none of Augustine's trinity theology was bas, AFAICT. He was able to remain within the orthodoxy of the historic Church of his time on that point.

You don't think using Jesus' very words, "compel them to come in" to teach conversion to the truth as theological, (let alone error)?

 

[preachinjesus]

I've heard similar arguments from Catholic apologists who claim teaching infallibility for the Popes though other types of sin are simply human.

I'm not making an argument, I'm asking a question. Besides, I'm not Catholic.

In answer though, none of Augustine's trinity theology was bas, AFAICT. He was able to remain within the orthodoxy of the historic Church of his time on that point.

So you're saying Augustine's Trinitarian theology is not based in or proven by Scripture at all? That when we sit and read through his works on the Trinity there is nothing biblical about them?

(There is an error in your post, maybe autocorrect, happens to me, so I'll wait for clarity first.)

You don't think using Jesus' very words, "compel them to come in" to teach conversion to the truth as theological, (let alone error)?

I don't understand what you're saying here. Please help me better understand.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thanks for the links.

Okay, let's re-engage here. Since you've stated that Augustine, of the principal theologians whom we get our theology from, is both unbiblical and outright error-laden (strong claims) we need to focus on why you said this.

So let's answer my question from before: What parts of Augustine's Trinitarian theology are unbiblical and heretical?

I think that is pretty straightfoward and a good starting point.

Here and elsewhere, I have stated the areas of my disagreements with Augustine.

The part of your post that I put in bold is the crux of the problem: The RCC, the Magisterial Reformers, and the Calvinist-influenced free churches all follow the corrupted Latin, Western theology regarding man, sin, atonement, and salvation, the seeds of which were planted by Augustine. In these areas, I prefer the early Greek fathers and the Anabaptists, as I find them true to the scriptures and the earliest churches.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I wish I'd written this!

Thank you.

Many like to excuse Luther and Calvin, defend them, or deny what they did because they agree with them theologically. This is especially true of some Calvinist Baptists on this forum, which is astonishing!

 

[preachinjesus]

Here and elsewhere, I have stated the areas of my disagreements with Augustine.

Well I've read pretty everything you've written and, honestly, haven't Seen a detailed articulation which presents a reasonable case against the biblicism of Augustine. When you have spoken of him, you simply use circular argumentation that makes claims which are neither supported nor immediately obvious from Augustine's own works.

I'm not being belligerent here. My challenge is that Augustine is almost universally recognized as one of the formative theologians for the Church. He is embraced by almost all communions as being thoroughly biblical, coherently orthodox, and developmentally foundational.

If you are going to say he isn't biblical, Christian, or theologically orthodox...well that is a mighty high mountain to climb to make your case. Unfortunately you're just posting in circles and haven't actually said anything against him.

Augustine us of such influence that he deserves a full airing of grievances.

The part of your post that I put in bold is the crux of the problem: The RCC, the Magisterial Reformers, and the Calvinist-influenced free churches all follow the corrupted Latin, Western theology regarding man, sin, atonement, and salvation, the seeds of which were planted by Augustine. In these areas, I prefer the early Greek fathers and the Anabaptists, as I find them true to the scriptures and the earliest churches.

I appreciate the definitions but there are problems with your suggestions.

One of the first is that the Free Church theologians (I are one) aren't immediate descendants of the Magisterial Reformation. If anything were more radiclal Reformation with ties to the Scottish Reformation. But anyhoo...

Another issue I have with the above is your lumping Latin theology into a pretty small camp when it is actually pretty diverse. Are you a Pelagian in your soteriology and anthropology? I have few problems with Augustine's doctrine of sin and depravity. Actually I'd challenge anyone who says he is unbiblical to show me your texts and arguments and I'll show you mine. The Bible is clear...mankind is a fallen wreck unable to save himself. Any other view has a big ole hill to climb to make their case.

As for the Greek Fathers you mention (which is a good line of argumentation btw) which ones primarily inform your soteriology and anthropology? Is it Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians? In each there is much differentiation...but they all would agree with my above point about the condition of mankind.

Here's the challenge to those who seek to desmirch Latin Theology by stating it lacks freedom from Platonic (or is it Neo-Platonic...they are never clear) thought....it isn't an accurate accusation. Why would Latin theology be more akin to Plati when Plati wrote in Greek? Also, aren't the Greek Fathers you mention just as given over to Platonic thought?

I'm not trying to make it difficult to reply. My part in this is to ask you and Summa to show us your work. Show us where Augustine deviates from Scripture. Since both of you indicate you've thoroughly read him, and seem to have a handle on fourth and fifth century historical theology then this shouldn't be a difficult task.

Yet when I've asked for specificity you've given me, and Summa has provided nothing, only grandiose and circular claims that anyone who finished high school philosophy could make. Given Augustine's massive influence on the Church (good or bad) he deserves a thorough response from those saying he is unbiblical and anti-Christian.

I can go on if you desire. However I hope you hear this as one respectful thinker prodding another reasonable thinker along. My respect for you stands, I only ask you to show us your work. Let's have a real conversation and not fleeting and vapid statements of the commoners who have never had an original theological thought.

Most of the rambling polemicists around here can't handle this kind of a discussion; I believe you can. So let's have it friend.