Food for thought....

[HeirofSalvation]

 

[TCassidy]

No. Augustine of Hippo had been a Manichaean prior to his conversion, but later rejected it, and burned his Manichaean library.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

O.K.....
Sure....
and 30 years' worth of presupposition couldn't possibly have worked it's way into his subconscious thinking and effected his presuppositions when interpreting Scripture...............Yes, Augustine was a complete "Tabula Rasa"..... (aren't we all)???

Just like happens to all of us right?

Yes.....he "burned it".


Just like every media reporter has their Political opininions "surgically removed"....before they become journalists.
By the way....did you know that secretly I'm actually Cindi Lauper???
It's true.

Pbbbth....

Make your arguments, but don't insult our intelligence.

 

[rsr]

Sorry. I don't have an hour to spend on this. Can you please summarize the argument?

I'm not sure that everyone who throws "gnosticism" around knows what it means. From my reading of Augustine, he is the antithesis of gnostic, probably leaning too much toward rationalism.

Here are a free quotes from Jesse in defense of his critics:

I believe that God is omniscient. Omniscient means “all knowledge”. God has all the knowledge that exists. God knows everything that there is to know. The parts of the future that are predetermined, God knows as predetermined, and the parts of the future that are undetermined, God knows as undeteremined.

I agree with the Pelagians that:

1. Mankind has a free will

2. Men are sinners by choice

3. Sin is a choice, not a hereditary substance

Sorry, agreeing with Pelagius is a big problem. Orthodox Christians never, never, admit to agreeing with Pealagius.

I believe that it is possible to live the rest of your life without sinning.

Even Wesley or Clarke wouldn't go that far, I think. Willfully sinning, maybe.

God bless Jesse and his ministry, but even though he can quote many authorities, he's over his head in calling Augustine a gnostic. Augustine can be called to account on many other issues, but gnosticism is laughable.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Sorry. I don't have an hour to spend on this.

Then, this isn't your thread and your comments aren't particularly helpful .

Can you please summarize the argument?

No.

I'm not sure that everyone who throws "gnosticism" around knows what it means.

If you had that hour, you might know.

From my reading of Augustine, he is the antithesis of gnostic, probably leaning too much toward rationalism.

I thought that I've heard every accusation about Augustine there is....."rationalism" was never one of them.

Sorry, agreeing with Pelagius is a big problem.

Only if you don't know crap about him....as is the case with probably everyone on this board.

Orthodox Christians never, never, admit to agreeing with Pealagius.

I'm an Orthodox Christian.......I hold all the fundamentals of the Christian faith and defend them....

I agree with Pelagius....not on everything...but on a whole lot more than I do with for instance...Augustine, who was a heretic.
All I know about you is that you don't have "one hour" to learn.
That pretty much sums up the arguments against him.
People who don't have one hour, don't know anything about him...
And people who still know that they've been told that Pelagius is a heretic....

BTW: One doesn't even have to appreciate Pelagius one whit to care for this video...it's about Augustine...not Pelagius...but, don't let that keep you from cursing him

Even Wesley or Clarke wouldn't go that far, I think. Willfully sinning, maybe.

To the much maligned Pelagians you know nothing about.....
all sin is willful sin...
It's built into the definition.
It's not a weird disease you inherit from your daddy's spermatozoa...

But don't bother yourself...


B.T.W....
Did you know that there are blasphemers who call our Risen Christ a liar on another thread???

I know this because another Godly administrator pointed that out...

So, I'm sure your right on to checking that out.

God bless Jesse and his ministry, but even though he can quote many authorities, he's over his head in calling Augustine a gnostic.

You're right.
Augustine isn't a Gnostic.
Jesse knows that.
If you had an hour, you would too.

Augustine can be called to account on many other issues,

Yes.

but gnosticism is laughable.

Yes, which is why Jesse didn't accuse him of it.

But, you don't have an hour to learn that, because your time is that precious.

 

[TCassidy]

Sorry. I don't have an hour to spend on this. Can you please summarize the argument?

I'm not sure that everyone who throws "gnosticism" around knows what it means. From my reading of Augustine, he is the antithesis of gnostic, probably leaning too much toward rationalism.

That is the difference between you and HeirofSalvation. You actually read Augustine.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Again... for anyone who wants some informative food for thought for themselves:
[Video deleted. Same video as post #1.]

 

[JonShaff]

I watched it.

I'm a non-calvinist.

Still trying to decide if that was helpful at all?

 

[rsr]

You're right.
Augustine isn't a Gnostic.
Jesse knows that.
If you had an hour, you would too.

Thank you for your lack of help.

Luckily, in a minute I found Jesse's own words on this, a link to which would have saved so much time. But I guess you couldn't bother to provide such helpful information because you are so possessed with your own holiness that such things are not necessary.

By teaching that free will was lost and sin is the result of a defect in our nature, or the necessity of our corrupted constitution, Augustine was infiltrating the Church with Gnostic concepts and doctrines. Sin was no longer viewed as an ethical problem or a problem with how men use the faculty of their will. Rather, the problem of sin was now viewed as a metaphysical problem or as a fault in the faculty of the will itself.

Those who stood against the error of Augustinian Gnosticism, who accused Augustine of teaching Manichaeism and held unto the old ways and truths of early Christianity, were soon persecuted and condemned as heretics once Augustinianism was given civil and Church authority. The many bishops in the Church who denied that the original sin of Adam so corrupted human nature that free will was lost continued to teach that men were sinners by choice and not by constitution. As a result, they were ripped out of their pulpits, had their possessions confiscated, and were excommunicated by both state and church. The doctrine of free will that the Early Church taught was soon replaced with the Gnostic teaching of a necessitated will because of a corrupted, ruined, sinful nature. Augustinian theology was a massive departure from Early Christianity. Like Calvinism after it, Augustinianism used political and governmental force to silence any voice of opposition so that its doctrines could spread like a plague without challenge. Gnostic views, on this point, successfully crept into the Church.

Well. Guess I was wrong.

If you want to accuse Augustine of Manichaesism, as you call it, you will have to accuse Christ and all the writers of the New Testament of the same fault. Anyone who reads the Bible will see that the post-Exilic Jews had a different conception of evil than those before. Satan, a mere accuser in the earlier books of the Bible, became the embodiment of evil in the later writers and the New Testament. But they were not Manichiaests in the Persian sense; God is supreme (as any person who purports to quote C.S. Lewis should know) and the satan is an impostor.

You are over your head.

 

[JonShaff]

With a moniker "heir of salvation" you'd think he'd be a proponent of eternal security seeing that he believes he is already an heir to it. Seems like people who believe they can lose their salvation aren't really honest about it. What they really mean is that OTHER PEOPLE can lose their salvation, not them.

 

[JonShaff]

Oh my, you guys need to look up Jesse Morrells on Youtube and his "Open air Preaching"

I guess people who are in sinless perfection can speak the way they do.

 

[TCassidy]

It stinks so badly it has to be out in the open air!

 

[TCassidy]

Westboro Baptist Church all over again. These clowns must be related to Fred Phelps.

When are these bible illiterates going to learn that the bible teaches us that truly saved people have been given the ministry of reconciliation, not judgementalism?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thank you for your lack of help.

It isn't that I don't want to be helpfulll
It's just that I don't like to speak for other people.
I want to let the video speak for itself.

Luckily, in a minute I found Jesse's own words on this, a link to which would have saved so much time.

But, I don't think you watched the video, so, no, you really didn't catch his own words did you?
His "own words" were in the video, that is what I provided.

But I guess you couldn't bother to provide such helpful information

The "helpful information" was the video itself.
You may choose to watch it or not
and choose to agree or disagree with it or not.

I'm not interested in speaking for him.

because you are so possessed with your own holiness that such things are not necessary

.
This is unnecessary.
I like to let people speak for themselves, that's all.

If you want to accuse Augustine of Manichaesism, as you call it, you will have to accuse Christ and all the writers of the New Testament of the same fault.

I don't accuse him of it:
I don't think Jesse does in this video either.

If you watched the video, you might come to the same conclusion.....

It's called "Food for Thought"
Not...."What HoS thinks".

Good grief, that's why I didn't "summarize" Because I don't think jumping to conclusions is the best idea. You've done that, and are debating a video you never watched.
That's why I didn't summarize:
Because it will invariably result in debating a straw-man or a minor point rather than the larger premise.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

With a moniker "heir of salvation" you'd think he'd be a proponent of eternal security seeing that he believes he is already an heir to it. Seems like people who believe they can lose their salvation aren't really honest about it. What they really mean is that OTHER PEOPLE can lose their salvation, not them.

"Eternal Security" is not mentioned in this video, nor is it the topic of this thread.
Why bring it up?

 

[JonShaff]

"Eternal Security" is not mentioned in this video, nor is it the topic of this thread.
Why bring it up?

Sidebar, many threads have sidebars

You really follow this guy? Come on, be honest.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Sidebar, many threads have sidebars

Especially ones where no one wants to watch and actually comment on the video posted.

You really follow this guy? Come on, be honest.

I find the video engaging, informative, provocative and worth being considered.

It's really that simple.

That's why I titled the thread "Food for Thought". It couldn't be simpler.

 

[JonShaff]

Especially ones where no one wants to watch and actually comment on the video posted.

I find the video engaging, informative, provocative and worth being considered.

It's really that simple.

That's why I titled the thread "Food for Thought". It couldn't be simpler.

I did watch the video.

He quoted a bunch of "church fathers" and much scripture out of context.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

He quoted a bunch of "church fathers" and

Yes....beliefs and practices of the "Church Fathers" was actually the point of the video...And how one particular "Church Father" was probably or at least plausibly poorly influenced in his views by previous practices and Philosophies.

I would expect him to, since that was the point of it.

much scripture out of context.

Did you really watch it with any understanding?...
Because he didn't quote that much Scripture at all.
And, you seem to have missed the larger point which wasn't so much to make a Theological treatise, or argue for it's validity but rather to state beliefs of those Church Fathers and how one in particular may have been influenced and similarly influenced other Reformation Theologians..........

which explains your complaint that he "Qouted a bunch of 'Church Fathers'"

 

[JonShaff]

Yes....beliefs and practices of the "Church Fathers" was actually the point of the video...And how one particular "Church Father" was probably or at least plausibly poorly influenced in his views by previous practices and Philosophies.

I would expect him to, since that was the point of it.

Did you really watch it with any understanding?...
Because he didn't quote that much Scripture at all.
And, you seem to have missed the larger point which wasn't so much to make a Theological treatise, or argue for it's validity but rather to state beliefs of those Church Fathers and how one in particular may have been influenced and similarly influenced other Reformation Theologians..........

which explains your complaint that he "Qouted a bunch of 'Church Fathers'"

I did watch it with understanding LOL!

the much was suppose to quantify how out of context it was! I know he quoted little scripture, which was going to be My Third point!

Early church fathers were known to be in huge error as well. So this video didn't do much for me.

"He quoted scripture, Much of it out of context"