Random Augustine

"[Referring to a Psalm]...For by "spontaneous rain" nothing else is meant than grace, not rendered to merit, but given freely, whence also it is called grace; for He gave it, not because we were worthy, but because He willed. And knowing this, we shall not trust in ourselves; and this is to be made "weak." But He Himself makes us perfect, who says also to the Apostle Paul, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness." Man, then, was to be persuaded how much God loved us, and what manner of men we were whom He loved; the former, lest we should despair; the latter, lest we should be proud. And this most necessary topic the apostle thus explains: "But God commends," he says, "His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Romans 5:8-10— Donavit Also in another place: "What," he says, "shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how has He not with Him also freely given us all things?" Now that which is declared to us as already done, was shown also to the ancient righteous as about to be done; that through the same faith they themselves also might be humbled, and so made weak; and might be made weak, and so perfected." - St. Augustine, On the Trinity, Book IV, ch. 1

Nothing particularly polemical here, just a quote I enjoyed.

Election

"He made us to believe in Christ, who made for us a Christ on whom we believe. He makes in men the beginning and the completion of the faith in Jesus who made the man Jesus the beginner and finisher of faith" - St. Augustine of Hippo (The Predestination of the Saints 31).

When I read that quote, I almost thought it was Calvin. Catholics generally abhor the doctrine of predestination, and ever since Augusti--err Jansenism was condemned, it's been almost impossible for Catholics to even mention predestination without getting knocked out and mysteriously waking up in a locked cell next to a pile of Molina's works. That might be a little exaggerated... As a one-time Calvinist (this blog testifies to that), I personally/existentially find predestination to be perhaps the most comforting doctrine ever proclaimed.

As one commenter noted, Catholics traditionally have found comfort in the notion of the gift of perseverance (as have Calvinists), except that after Trent, it has been heretical to claim you know with any certainty that you are elected (which now makes it fun to exegete St. Paul's "For I am Certain"). Anyway, perhaps we'll rehearse this debate over again and I'll read some more Augustine (which is never a bad thing).

My theology reminds me of Nietzsche's cosmology, a continual meaningless repetition of the same thing over and over for a presumed infinite time, but only consisting of finite materials, or like Camus' take on the Myth of Sisyphus, rolling the ball up the hill for eternity, only to have it roll back down and start over again.

lord have mercy.

Why Luther and I Think Calvin Is Wrong About The Eucharist

Ascension doesn't pose a problem unless you're a modernist who doesn't believe Jesus actually multiplied the loaves and fish in the feeding miracles, God can create as much of his body as he wants (which I'm sure is what GODzilla's redemptive message was). As well we can choose to or not to heed St. Augustine's warning that it is dangerous to think too greatly about the Ascension (and he didn't even know about the stratosphere, space, etc).

But to add more Augustine:

"For just as he remained with us even after his ascension, so we too are already in heaven with him, even though what is promised us has not yet been fulfilled in our bodies.

Christ is now exalted above the heavens, but he still suffers on earth all the pain that we, the members of his body, have to bear. He showed this when he cried out from above: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? and when he said: I was hungry and you gave me food.

Why do we on earth not strive to find rest with him in heaven even now, through the faith, hope and love that unites us to him? While in heaven he is also with us; and we while on earth are with him." - St. Augustine of Hippo "Sermon on the Feast of the Ascension)

This however is my argument that oldest and most hated of Christian arguments: It's a mystery!

Luther's response is much more Biblical and difficult to refute:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16

Now unless St. Paul was really throwing us through a loop and the rhetorical answer was "no" it would appear that all Calvinist and Zwinglian interpretations which basically make it the Holy Spirit are at a loss here. It's the communion of the BODY and BLOOD of Christ NOT the SPIRIT of Christ. There. don't blame me, blame Sts. Paul, Augustine, and (un-st. ?) Martin Luther, and possibly God.

Word Usage In This Blog

I went to Wordle.net and made a word picture of this blog. I'm probably years behind everyone else who found this out, but here it is:

title="Wordle: theologyofandrew.blogspot"> src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/1167748/theologyofandrew.blogspot"
alt="Wordle: theologyofandrew.blogspot"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">

I felt really good about myself when I saw that "Augustine" was the biggest word of all, followed by God, grace, good, works.

St. Augustine Against The "Unintelligence" (his word not mine) of Faith Alone

"Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed “a vessel of election” by the apostle, who, after declaring that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision,” adds at once, “But faith working through love” … Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives – the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life … And the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;” saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men’s boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” … It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God … Grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God “shall reward every man according to his works.”" - St. Augustine "On Grace and Free Will" (Ch. 18-20)

For a good blog regarding this see: http://nealjudisch.blogspot.com/2009/01/colson-on-benedict-on-luther-why.html

If St. Augustine Was Wrong...

This is my Opinion on the matter not a scholarly argument etc. Just bear that in mind when you comment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Catholic patristic scholars since the 1560s have been showing that the Council of Trent's doctrine of justification is the same doctrine of justification held by St. Augustine of Hippo.

"the righteousness of God,— not that whereby He is Himself righteous, but that with which He endows man when He justifies the ungodly." - St. Augustine "On the Spirit and the Letter" Chapter 15

is the constant definition used. Now some folks like Alister McGrath say that poor Augustine didn't have Erasmus' Greek Manuscript (which had mistranslations of it's own) and that iustificare isn't the same as logozomai etc. Basically to short it to the point of triviality: Augustine was wrong, Luther was right. (Ironically another member of McGrath's church has argued that both Augustine and Luther are wrong (N.T. Wright), but there's the "perspicuity of scripture" for you)

But anyone who has read the wikipedia article on Augustine could tell you if Augustine was wrong, pardon my Anglo-Saxon but... Western Christianity is fucked, God is dead, etc...

If the Church which labelled itself as Augustinian for over a millenia was wrong about Original Sin, Predestination, Salvation, Pelagianism, Donatism, etc. Then God's Spirit is so impotent at leading the Church that there's no point in even believing.

That's my opinion. And if you think the Church was wrong about salvation for 1200 years then you might as well just become an Anabaptist and make it 1500 years, or a Mormon and make it 1800 years. Heck why not start your own church and just believe EVERYONE was wrong and it's actually justification by extrinsic interpretative-danced righteousness.

Finally: to Protestants, please give up the title Augustinian if you're just going to say he was wrong about salvation, you can't just pick and choose, even Luther said later in life that reading the bible through the interpretation of Augustine was like pouring milk through a bag of coal. So keep the title and accept infused righteousness, or give it up and keep imputed righteousness...or just remain keep your illogical idea that Augustine somehow taught what Luther taught even though he openly repudiated your doctrines.

I'm gonna regret posting this as all the Reformed will start attacking me like a Jew in the Gaza strip....and if any Jews read this I'm gonna regret posting this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Augustinian Soteriology

In an attempt to gain an Augustinian understanding of soteriology I'm planning on reading "On the Spirit and the Letter" ...but not in Latin. I just started skimming already this morning and found two passages interesting and almost contradictory:

"What, however, is the spirit of this world, but the spirit of pride? ... they too are deceived, who, while ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to God's righteousness...we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ—in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace." - Chapter 22, "On the Spirit and the Letter"

Now this is probably quoted in the Formulas of Concord or something and sounds REALLY Lutheran, but look at the next quote:

"Now He that has wrought us for the self-same thing is God, who also has given unto us the earnest of the Spirit; 2 Corinthians 5:5 and after a little he thus briefly draws the conclusion of the matter: That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21 This is not the righteousness whereby God is Himself righteous, but that whereby we are made righteous by Him." - Chapter 31 "On the Letter and the Spirit, St. Augustine of Hippo

That is a passage the Council of Trent quotes on Justification against the Lutheran doctrine of Imputed Righteousness.

So what the Hell is St. Augustine trying to say?! I'm going to try to figure out... and if he teaches Luther's view of Justification I'll leave the Roman church, but for some strange reason, I don't think he's going to. Knowing my luck, he'll teach some weird hybrid of both that will leave me forever guessing.

The next book I'll have to read after this is Henri De Lubac's "Augustinianism and Modern Theology" where he critiques both Jansenism and (I think) St. Thomas Aquinas doctrines that seem to be "pure nature" without grace.

Cardinal Newman on Luther and St. Augustine's Opposition

"The main point is whether the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept by the regenerate. Augustine says, that whereas we are by nature condemned by the Law, we are enabled by the grace of God to perform it unto our justification; Luther [and Calvin equally] that, whereas we are condemned by the law, Christ has Himself performed it unto our justification — Augustine, that our righteousness is active; Luther, that it is passive; Augustine, that it is imparted, Luther that it is only imputed; Augustine, that it consists in a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther maintains that God's commandments are impossible to man Augustine adds, impossible without His grace; Luther that the Gospel consists of promises only Augustine, that it is also a law, Luther, that our highest wisdom is not to know the Law, Augustine says instead, to know and keep it — Luther says, that the Law and Christ cannot dwell together in the heart. Augustine says that the Law is Christ; Luther denies and Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of conscience. Luther says that a man is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; Augustine excludes those works only which are done before grace is given; Luther, that our best deeds are sins; Augustine, that they are really pleasing to God" - Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman (Lectures on Justification, ch. ii, 58)

Oh what a friend we have in Pelikan

So I finally got my volumes 3 and 4 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" and have been flying through volume 3. In less than a day I'm on page 130 of 307 and I am enjoying it alot, but it scares me because it's so challenging, I'm realizing that my "education" in medieval and late medieval history that I received at university was almost nothing more than Modern Humanist Propoganda. I also learned that Roman Catholic attitudes that Protestantism is COMPLETELY innovative are also incorrect.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff
In complete honesty Pelikan I find is very fair, but does clearly read like an Orthodox Christian who was educated by Lutherans. My bold assertion there is based on a few facts. He likes to point out the Western acceptance of the filioque as kind of a universal 'accident' and talks about how the West (Anselm particularly) F-ed up Christology pertaining to the 2 wills of Christ. He also talks about the "seeds" of the Lutheran Law-Gospel distinction in the 10th century preaching of "consolation and warning" and the "two-fold fashion" and sacramental nature of preaching. So yes he seems very fair, but it's just interesting to note those hints of the traditions he's most familiar with. (I think he's awesome I'm not trying to call him biased).

There's Something about Augustine:
His story-like telling of the history of Western Dogma is very kindred of my favourite historians who at the price of possibly over-simplifying, commit the sin of "making History interesting" by telling it as a narrative (Gibbon's account of the Roman Empire was the same). But the narrative seems to be all about St. Augustine of Hippo. Augustine is always the source and summit (to borrow the phrase on the Eucharist from the Catholic Catechism) of theology. Everyone is always fighting about Augustine and the story which ends up as a tragedy with the Reformation seems to be all because of Augustine. Pelikan's Lutheranism also is evident in his constant affirmations that the catholic faith was always "prima scriptura" scripture as the highest authority followed by the fathers (mostly Augustine) and then reason.

So it seems VERY interesting to me to know more about Pelikan's conversion as he had spent so much time studying the West and how to become East Orthodox you ultimately have to say that this whole Augustinian school of thought that becomes the centre of every debate was just wrong from the start. Original Sin is untrue, Predestination is only a mystery, etc. I really need to buy his volume on the East.

What's it to Me?
The interesting thing is seeing his sort of commentary on authentic developments and inauthentic developments of tradition. For example he seems to be completely Orthodox in his assessment in this book. He notes wherever the supremacy of Peter or the Papacy is called into question but unlike a Lutheran, he always asserts that it was the bishops who held this equal authority with Peter having Primacy but not Supremacy (a very Orthodox assertion). He also always notes that the belief in Justification by faith alone was an innovation and not to be found in medieval teaching (a very non-Lutheran assertion). But he also talks about penance and the penitential system with great disdain (a very Orthodox and Lutheran assertion), and talks about the constant belief in the objective efficacy of the sacraments (an everyone but Reformed and Anabaptist assertion).

So maybe he's just recording history. I'm just too stuck in polemics. It's great to have a challenge though. During this whole conversion process things would've been much better if people told me to read more Church History and used more Church History to sway me. Oh well, nothing is set in stone, it's good to have this 'dead theologian' Pelikan to 'dialogue' with through his writings, perhaps if I ever gain Slavic citizenship the Orthodox might eventually consider me worthy of attending their eucharistic celebrations and I could see what he was 'on about'.

Augustine and Chrysostom on John 1:12

I'm doing a bible study on John's Gospel tonight and I was reading some of the Patristic commentaries and I found these two quotes on John 1:12 - a verse I had to memorize in bible school:

"But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God." - John 1:12

"all, He says, are deemed worthy the same privilege; for faith and the grace of the Spirit, removing the inequality caused by worldly things, has moulded all to one fashion, and stamped them with one impress, the King's. What can equal this lovingkindness? A king, who is framed of the same clay with us, does not deign to enrol among the royal host his fellow-servants, who share the same nature with himself, and in character often are better than he, if they chance to be slaves; but the Only-Begotten Son of God did not disdain to reckon among the company of His children both publicans, sorcerers, and slaves, nay, men of less repute and greater poverty than these, maimed in body, and suffering from ten thousand ills. Such is the power of faith in Him, such the excess of His grace. And as the element of fire, when it meets with ore from the mine, straightway of earth makes it gold, even so and much more Baptism makes those who are washed to be of gold instead of clay; the Spirit at that time falling like fire into our souls, burning up the image of the earthy (1 Corinthians 15:49), and producing the image of the heavenly, fresh coined, bright and glittering, as from the furnace-mould." - St. John Chrysostom Homily 10 on the Gospel of John

"But John adds: As many as received Him. What did He afford to them? Great benevolence! Great mercy! He was born the only Son of God, and was unwilling to remain alone. Many men, when they have not sons, in advanced age adopt a son, and thus obtain by an exercise of will what nature has denied to them: this men do. But if any one have an only son, he rejoices the more in him; because he alone will possess everything, and he will not have any one to divide with him the inheritance, so that he should be poorer. Not so God: that same only Son whom He had begotten, and by whom He created all things, He sent into this world that He might not be alone, but might have adopted brethren. For we were not born of God in the manner in which the Only-begotten was born of Him, but were adopted by His grace. For He, the Only-begotten, came to loose the sins in which we were entangled, and whose burden hindered our adoption: those whom He wished to make brethren to Himself, He Himself loosed, and made joint-heirs. ...He did not fear to have joint-heirs, because His heritage does not become narrow if many are possessors. Those very persons, He being possessor, become His inheritance, and He in turn becomes their inheritance. Hear in what manner they become His inheritance: "The Lord has said unto me, You are my Son, this day have I begotten You. Ask of me, and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance". Hear in what manner He becomes their inheritance. He says in the Psalms: "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance, and of my cup". Let us possess Him, and let Him possess us: let Him possess us as Lord; let us possess Him as salvation, let us possess Him as light. What then did He give to them who received Him? To them He gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe in His name; that they may cling to the wood and cross the sea." - St. Augustine of Hippo Tractate 2, On the Gospel of John, 13.

Casual thoughts on Substitutionary Atonement

I was listening to a Sufjan Stevens song today and he mentioned the Substitutionary Atonement, the great dogma of Western Christianity. But I realized today that the doctrine of Penal Substitution - the central key to my lifelong faith - is not compatible with Catholicism... I think this is pretty stupid, as John Calvin pretty much just does a better job than Anselm at explaining the Atonement. I always saw Penal Substitution merely as a further improvement or development of Aquinas, which was a development of Anselm which was a development of Augustine and Athanasius.

I read Isaiah 53 today and Romans 5. There can be nothing clearer than the fact that Christ died in our place, was punished for our sins. St. Anselm just based his theory on some Regal understanding of God's kingship and the need for honour. But this is obviously outdated. Ugh and I found this page that made me feel sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Reparation_to_Jesus_Christ ... "Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ" - I've not heard such a blasphemous title in my life. How on earth could any human pay Christ for anything. Penance is a legal fiction.

Yep... well maybe I should just stop reading my bible, as even when doctrines are clearly outlined I'm not allowed to believe them unless someone said something about it in the 3rd or 4th century affirming them.. . stupid church fathers.... gah. I hate my religion. (but of course sola scriptura makes no sense, and protestant ecclesiology is untraditional and bankrupt, and the Orthodox are racist shut ins). I'm also obligated to believe that Christ established the Church, but on days like today I really wish he established a better Church, because his is annoying me.

On a better note I talked with the Monsignor today and he said that Baptist baptisms are valid. So that's cool, because I wouldn't have wanted to affront God's honour by using the wrong water or words or intent.

So in the end the substitutionary atonement makes sense to me and was a pillar in my faith but at the same time I understand Catholic attacks on it:

1. Giving pardon does not square with taking satisfaction;
2. There is nothing that conforms with justice about punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free;
3. The temporary death of one is not a substitute for the eternal death of many;
4. Perfect substitutionary satisfaction would confer on its beneficiaries an unlimited permission to sin.

So I guess number 3 kinda proves it, but at the same time as i will say that I will stick with what the Church teaches and try to figure out Anselm's formulation, I just feel rather attached to Penal Substitution. It makes so much sense, and it makes me happier, just like sola fide and Lutheran anti-nomianism...

I prophesy that one day I will become an Anglican and indulge myself in all these wonderful biblical heresies and finally be at peace.

this is just me venting, don't bother taking anything too seriously written above.

Andrew the Reprobate - Why I can never be a Humanist

Although I've read and continue to read alot of the pagan philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, etc) and the Enlightenment thinkers (Tom Paine, Gibbon, Rousseau, etc) I have to say that there's one reason I cannot be a Humanist in the modern sense of the word. I absolutely disagree with the idea that man is inherently good or even neutral. In the words of the genius Karl Barth "Man is not good, man has never been good, and man will never be good". I know above all else that I myself am a reprobate.

As much as I've divinized these men, the Church Fathers did teach some strange things. Origen for example said, "The power of choosing good and evil is within the reach of all.". A more simple definition of the Pelagian heresy could hardly be put forth.

As much as I've villainized the men, Luther and Calvin have taught things which resonate deeply with my Christian experience. I am disgusted with reading all this Jesuit/Molinist/Humanistic garbage about the goodness of man and his ability to triumph. I'm at the point where I'm obliged to believe that everyone is made Imago Dei and to downplay the fall to a slight mistake, so my current theology is that while I cannot apply St. Paul's, St. Augustines, Blaise Pascal's, Martin Luther's, or John Calvin's theologies of human nature to the world at large I can apply them to myself.

I know and have learned in the last year that above all I am a reprobate. I don't actually read Calvin alot anymore so i'm not trying to show off -as if I found this myself- but I found this online and liked it alot. It totally slaps Catholicism in the face, but only post-trent semi-pelagian Catholicism.

"...our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence." (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; Allen translation.)

We had to listen last week in RCIA to a lecture on not being able to sin without willing it or wanting to, which I thought was the most anti-Augustinian thing I'd ever heard, and so I wanted to meditate on some Calvin. In Catholicism we say only some actions have concupiscence or we are culpable - blameable for. Here Calvin is saying that man is NOTHING but guilt and willful sin. lol. it's sad because it's true.

I find it funny that when I discussed theology last night it was in an intense debate with a Protestant Pastor, I was challenging him with the high ethical standards of scripture when I realized that I had spent the entire day in sin, utter chosen sin, and here I was preaching. It was at that moment that I remembered St. Paul in Philippians talking about those who preach for benefit or personal glory. I myself I think do it out of habit or for the sake of argument, there is no genuine desire for real virtue or godliness, just winning an argument, or shattering someone's certainty.

A Buddhist I debated last month said to me "Are you so closed minded as to think ONLY Christians go to Heaven!?" and I actually laughed and said "Far from it, I don't even believe all Christians are going to Heaven, I don't even think I'm going to Heaven (I'm currently in a state of Mortal sin and haven't confessed to a priest and received absolution so in Catholicism I am hell-bound)". Frank Schaeffer once got alot of flak for saying "I hope God exists, I hope I go to Heaven but my faith is less certainty and more hope" - or something to that effect. Well I know God exists philosophically, I know there is a standard, and I know that I do not measure up to it, as Calvin says: "soul and body, is polluted"

Thus while I may not be able to say much from scripture without hypocrisy, on that fateful day when it is read from the pulpit "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure." (Jer 17.9) I can add an "Amen".

And when I look at the world I see everyday I have to agree with the observation that: "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

Jansenism Pt. 2 and Emphasis in Theology

Emphasis is important in theology. A church can believe in a doctrine but not emphasize it over a period of time. An example is 'sola gratia' - grace alone. Dr. R.C. Sproul is a very honest Reformed theologian and he says in his book "Faith Alone" that the Catholic Church has always fought to maintain that salvation is by the grace of God alone (though obviously not by faith alone, hence the Reformation). Louis Bouyer writes that if the Church focussed more on Grace Alone during the time of the Reformation, it is probable that the issues would have been settled. This is quite a claim of course, and easily debatable, but the general principle is that emphasis matters.



Jansenism is intriguing to me because I like it's emphasis, in only a few ways does it contradict Church teaching (possibly teaching limited atonement, and irresistible grace), but it places great emphasis on Election and the sovereign grace of God and faith in the work of Christ. It never denies that works justify or the nature of the communion or anything else like that (from the little of what I've read), but it does emphasize what I think at least is the 'best' of Protestantism and Catholicism.



Jansen himself wrote that if his doctrines were offensive to the Church that they should of course be disposed of and that he wished to be faithful to the Church, and I believe that is the point. The point is that emphasis needs to be reformed at times or shifted depending on the situation. Baptists for example believe in an eternally Hell for all believers which they will be conscious during, but I've never heard a sermon on it, because it's just alluded to briefly or like an 'unwritten law' that it exists. Thus if their churches start to doubt Hell, they should emphasize it.



Thus while I am not a Jansenist because it has been declared heretical, I definately agree with the emphasis and that the good parts of it's theology should be emphasized more. I don't know why people think Election is such a horrific doctrine, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and alot of others are in agreement that it is a beautiful thing. Active reprobation...is another story.

Why I cannot be a Protestant Christian (Part 1): Authority

I'm not doing this to be bitter or angry, Jared Nelson has advanced my faith probably more than any Christian I've ever met before, and I'm sure he'll have alot less purgatory time than I (barring indulgences) *joke. But in reading some of his latest posts I've realized that in the same way that he could never be a Roman Catholic I could never be a Protestant.

Sola Scriptura as Heretical Authority

"You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life... Yet you refuse to come to me to have life" - John 5:39-40

Here is an outline of Peter Kreeft's argument from "Catholic Christianity":

"a. No Christian before Luther ever taught it, for the first sixteen Christian centuries.
b. The first generation of Christians did not even have the New Testament.
c. Without the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture authoritatively, Protestantism has divided into more than twenty thousand different "churches" or denominations.
d. If Scripture is infallible, as traditional Protestants believe, then the Church must be infallible too, for a fallible cause cannot produce an infallible effect, and the Church produced the Bible. The Church (apostles and saints) wrote the New Testament, and the Church (subsequent bishops) defined it's canon.
e. Scripture itself calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15)
f. And Scripture itself never teaches sola scriptura. thus sola scriptura is self-contradictory. If we are to believe only Scripture, we should not believe sola scriptura"

For these and other reasons I cannot except Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), as it is a Tradition of Men (Mk 7:7).

I have NEVER heard one good Protestant argument for Sola Scriptura, never. I'm actually sad, I've bought multiple books involving it's discussion. The most honest one I've read is "Christ and the Bible" by Wenham, an Anglican, who honestly says in the end that without the Roman Catholic Church we can't trust the bible - which of course is what St. Augustine said when he wrote: ""If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, 'I do not believe'? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" (Against the Letter of Mani Called 'The Foundation' 5:6).

Oral Tradition as Authoritative

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you" - 1 Corinthians 11:2

"...there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" - St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

This fact I was taught by Philip Wilson, the Acts of the Apostles contains the phrase 'Word of God' 12 times, now which passages of scripture are these phrases directed to you may ask? NONE, every time Word of God appears, it is in description of Apostolic Teaching. SOME of which is recorded in Scripture. However the dual natures of Christ, the Trinity, etc, is all in apostolic teaching. As Jared argues well in his post: http://deadtheologians.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-i-cannot-be-roman-catholic-part-2-i.html that Authoritative Tradition is a doctrine of Scripture.

Nowhere does Christ say for the apostles to write down scripture, nowhere does he say that some day 'the bible' will come and it will be the Regula Fidei. You'd assume that Our Lord would at least allude to or mention it if he planned on it being the Centre (I'm Canadian it's not a typo) of our faith. Instead he tells the Apostles to teach, the apostles appoint bishops (Acts 1:20 "Let another take his [Judas'] position of bishop"). This is what the Word of God testifies to, a group of Bishops ruling, with St. Peter's successor holding Primacy.

Creeds as Authoritative
Ecumenical councils are seen as binding interpretations of Scripture and declarations of doctrine based on the bible as well as the Oral Tradition of the Church. Arguably, the greatest of the ecumenical councils and the most strategically important in the combat of heresies mentions nothing about Scripture. It's odd that once again the 'rule of faith' is overlooked. Certainly it is used, and each point is more or less based on Scripture, however the Creed itself says nothing about adhering to Scripture, and infallibly interprets many items of the faith which Protestantism denies: some phrases that come to mind are "One baptism for the remission of sins" and "one holy catholic and apostolic".

Magesterium as Authoritative

"if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. " - God the Holy Spirit (via St. Paul in 1 Tim 3:15)

"I believe that it is equally true that the authority of the Scriptures alone surpasses the united opinions of all men. But the controversy
here does not concern the value of the Scriptures: both parties accept and venerate the same books. The conflict concerns the meaning of the Scriptures. Now I hear the objection: "What need is there for interpretation when the Scripture is entirely clear?" But if it is so clear, why have such eminent men groped so blindly and for so many centuries in such an important matter, as our adversaries claim?" - Erasmus of Rotterdam

"The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189])." -St. Irenaeus

The problem is mentioned here where Protestantism is left 'groping in the dark' as St. Paul said for there are over 15 prominent interpretations / denominations and which is true. Catholics usually say there are 30000 denominations, but I would like to say that in reality there are about 10-20 main interpretations or systems. The problem is that there must be one, and only one can be accurate. Each Protestant System's interpretations (ex. Sola Fide) are foreign to the Early Church and thus I cannot accept them as Authoritative.

"speaking of this as he [St. Paul] does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." -2 Peter 3:16

Ironically St. Irenaeus says that the heretics are the ones who back their opinions with faulty interpretations of Scripture and that the only true test of Orthodoxy is that of Apostolic Tradition and Apostolic Succession.

Dinner Table In Heaven

So I made a new banner for this blog, and I was just thinking, if I had one wish when I got to Heaven, it's that I'd get to sit at a table for dinner one night (if there is food, and night) with Ravi Zacharias, St. Augustine, St. Paul, John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien. They're my heroes, and have contributed so much to my faith. I also hope Philip, Jared, and I will be able to finally figure out who is right in our debate and be able to sit in fellowship as well.

There is None Augustinian - No Not Even One...

"...while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in his sight" - Council of Trent (ch.5 in the 6th session)

"The Council of Trent tried to steer a course on the razor's edge between semi-Pelagianism and Reformed thought. It is arguable that they cut themselves on that razor." - R.C. Sproul "Faith Alone" (p.113)

"John Piper is bad" - Rev. John Piper

One realizes in the Catholic-Protestant debates that the Augustine-Pelagius debates take a centre stage. Many times I greatly dislike St. Augustine - don't get me wrong, he's a great theologian, and I loved his confessions. However it seems he caused too many problems. I can see why some Orthodox don't even think him a saint and think him more heterodox or heretical, than defender of Christian orthodoxy. One Orthodox theologian I read, said the problem with Augustine is that he wasn't consistent, he changed his mind as time went on, and that's why he wrote the retractions. This theologian said that many times people on opposite sides of the debate would quote St. Augustine in their favour and disagree when in actuality, Augustine contradicted himself. This would certainly make sense in my opinion, as Augustine has been cited by people from pretty much every theological camp in existence.

On Jared's blog he has a quote from Augustine's commentary on John 6:44 and it shows that Augustine taught irresistible grace, but I could come up with other quotes from 'grace and freewill' that would probably contradict it. As R.C. Sproul shows us in his polemical - but fair- book, is that the Catholic Church originally took this position of Augustinianism in the Council of Orange, however in Trent they took a semi-Pelagian position (almost identical actually in many ways to John Wesley and Methodist theology, with the whole prevenient grace and semi-Pelagianism).

But like any good portion of history the Catholics always have a loophole, the Council of Orange was local and not ecumenical, hence it can't be seen as infallible. They always find a way...

Thus I find Catholicism not Augustinian.

The Calvinist view which Jared has educated me on, makes alot of sense, and I'd be quick to side with them if I just went on emotion rather than reason (as Total Depravity gives me a good excuse for most things). However I have shown before that other Church Fathers such as St. Gregory of Nyssa clearly contradict this narrow or limited view of free-will, indeed St. Augustine I believe is the only one near it.

Thus I find Calvinism not Augustinian.

...And once again the Orthodox win the argument as the Western Christians squabble for 1000 years about the theology of one man.

...But Orthodoxy and Calvinism lose in the catholicity test... so Catholicism wins by default, according to my arbitrary arbitration.

Saved by Grace? Augustinian Problems

Systems are amazing. Systems make everyone organized and make sense of complex things. There is a system that is very prevalent and historic within Christianity it is called Augustinianism, and while I think it is possibly the best system for Christianity I believe that in my short life I have seen no proof of it outside the first few principles.

St. Augustine the doctor of Grace is one of my favourite authors - he may one day be my patron - who knows? He's the man who brought you the following ideas without you probably knowing it: Original Sin, Irresistible Grace, Eternality of Hell, Damnation of Unbaptized babies, Augustinian view of good works vs. Pelagian view, and sat on the Council of Carthage which helped decide the canon of scripture (which included the Apocrypha).

He's the man who said "Grace alone conquers sin" (and the lesser known 'I would not believe Scripture unless the church told me to').

His system is as such in my limited understanding - forgive my simplicity.
1. Man is Bad and unable to do good works
2. God enables man with Grace to cooperate with him
3. Man cooperates with God and is Sanctified/Justified/Regenerated

The end.

I've come to agree with St. Augustine on #1, but here's my problem, in Calivinsm, Augustinianism, and many other isms, the same pattern is shown, where ultimately long story short, bad person becomes good person by the grace of God.

Now of course in Lutheranism the bad person can stay bad and be saved, whereas for the Catholic, change must occur. But here's the problem. No one changes. I started out as a bad person, became a Christian, did some good stuff, did lots of bad stuff, and now live a fairly self-centred life. I'm 'trying' to do better, but the whole system says that I am unable to do better, only God can give me the grace to get better, well I've been waiting to cooperate, but I don't feel this lightning bolt of grace.

Irresistible grace is an even more confusing thing. In Calvinism I would just be zapped with Irresistible Grace and then I would be like a Jesus Robot until the energy of the Grace Lightning wore off. Or if I was one of the Reprobate it would just be lightning I guess, and I would burn, thus somehow making God feel better about himself? I'm still working that one out.

In daily life I find though, just alot of bad people. I mean I love people but everyone constantly sins. Even people I respect are probably just as bad as I am if I went into their daily lives. So where are the saints? where are the people who actually changed, who actually made it through the process of baptism, justification, regeneration, sanctification etc.... I don't know any of them. I just know people are bad, and sometimes God helps them to be better, but in the end they still aren't amazing, and usually not that much better than non-believers.

So once again the system sounds great, but I don't see it working.

This is why Lutheranism appeals to me, because with Extrinsic Justification (salvation outside ourselves) Christ won the victory. His merits are applied to us, and though we are bad, God sees us as good. As Old Marty said "At the same time I am both a great sinner and a great saint". No real change occurs - which is what I see in life.

Aside from scriptural problems and historical theology problems (aka. Luther being the first one to think it up), it sounds amazing. Tolkien called Catholicism 'the tale all men wish to be true' but I call Lutheranism/The alien righteousness of Christ 'the tale all men wish to be true'. I read Calvin's stuff on being Clothed in Righteousness and it's beautiful. As I said, I can't find it in church history, or in the Church Fathers and Creeds etc, and even have difficulty explaining all those other passages like Matthew 25 and James 2, but still, it's a great story. If it is true, praise Jesus, and if it isn't then it is still the most beautiful image I could think of.

Bono once said in an interview with Bill Hybels 'I believe in Grace, because I'm counting on it (to get to Heaven)', and I must say I echo his concern. It's 2 different views of grace, but all I know is I'm a bad person and I always will be, and I hope I have Christ's grace. But if it's this substance that Calvin describes, I'm screwed because I don't get zapped and suddenly feel overwhelmed to help my fellow man. Likewise if Catholicism is right and it's distributed via the sacraments, then none of the Catholics I know have been getting the right bread/Jesus because they live worse than I do. So where is the grace? where is the life change? I don't see it anywhere. So the only thing that seems logical is to believe it is outside ourselves - as Luther posited.

Jude 1-14

Jude 1-2 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, who are beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ:"

Servant can also be translated as slave. I love the opening of Jude and how much we can learn from it, the author (presumably St. Jude) identifies himself as a slave of Jesus Christ, but in the same verse says that we are 1) called by God, 2) beloved by God and 3) kept safe by God. These are not incompatible statements but rather they are the 4 ways the author describes Christians and those to whom it's written. So Christians are to be overwhelmingly humble about their place in comparison to God's glory but at the same time, are defined by God's overwhelming favour towards them. Strangely we are to be slaves of God, but unlike human slaves we are blessed with "mercy, peace, and love... in abundance"

Jude 3-4 "Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. "

The author writes that we are to "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints". I find it interesting that he claims they are to contend for the true faith. How do they know what the true faith is? They don't have the bible, this is 66AD, the Canon for the Jews would not be settled for another 24 years (Jamnia - though this council also rejected the NT).

How does Jude distinguish the gospel? it is the faith handed down by the saints - the set apart ones, the holy ones. How was it entrusted? ... we don't see any reference at all to scripture, so it must have been entrusted in the oral teachings of the apostles/church, as well as through this letter - which would be recognized as scripture in 360 CE in the Council of Laodicea. What is the author warning them? "about the salvation we share". So in Palestine right after the deaths of St. Paul & Peter, there was a threat to the salvation of the church, and the antidote to the heresy was the faith entrusted to the apostles.

My bible commentary says "the opponents pervert the grace of our God by understanding Christian freedom as freedom to do as they like. They deny Christ's moral authority by practicing and teaching immorality"

Jude 5-7 "Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, that the Lord, who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgement of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. "

There are some interesting ideas here which I'd like to discuss. The author is comparing this situation to the Exodus where he says they were all brought out of Egypt BUT, God destroyed those who did not believe, after he had saved them, they disbelieved and were destroyed. He then talks about fallen angels (demons) and compares them to those in Sodom, and says that they in a like manner indulged in unnatural lust and sexual immorality. For both of you reading this, who may be confused as to when fallen angels who are sexless committed sexual immorality, it has been suggested that this refers to the Nephillim in Genesis 6 - fallen angels who had sex with women and gave birth to giants. (there are crazy things in the bible). The story is explained alot more in the Apocryphal book of 1 Enoch 6-19. It is interesting how throughout the book the author used apocryphal references which early Jewish Christians must have been well versed in if the author were to reference them.

Now notice it says "a punishment of eternal fire" and these groups are united. I loved the idea of Hell as an earthly reality, of Hell as a place you hold the key out of as C.S. Lewis describes, or even as a place people want to be in as Rev. Tim Kellar describes. But the author seems oddly clear. Eternal Fire. Painfully obvious it seems, that the author here is saying that those who neglect the faith entrusted to the saints will suffer a similar fate to fallen angels. That seems a little extreme as a human faced with the possibility of Hell, but again it seems the greatest - most significant human action is sin - or evil rebellion against God. Good ol' humanity, exemplified in sin and rebellion.

Jude 8-9 "Yet in the same way these dreamers also defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’"

Here the author references another apocryphal story about the burial of Moses. It's purpose here is to illustrate similarities between 'these dreamers' - the heretics who threaten the church, and Satan. The archangel St. Michael was provoked by the devil to use his own authority to rebuke the devil, and thereby choose his own authority over God's, however Michael says "The Lord rebuke you!'. The commentary in my bible says "the implication of v.9 is to contrast Michael's behaviour with that of the opponents, who claim to be exempt from all moral authority and on their own authority reject all moral charges against them" - I think that's well put. The idea that God is judge on morality, and how do we know which is right? The faith entrusted to the saints.

Jude 10-11 "But these people slander whatever they do not understand, and they are destroyed by those things that, like irrational animals, they know by instinct. Woe to them! For they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam’s error for the sake of gain, and perish in Korah’s rebellion."

The author claims that they "slander what they do not understand" wow... I could write a whole blog about my encounters with similar people in the church today... but another time. It is interesting that each of the sins listed here are leading sins. Cain led humanity into murder, Balaam led Israel into apostasy, and Korah rebelled against Moses. Sacred scripture always shows that those who lead into sin are always more guilty than those simply committing it. *Jesus' woe to those who lead children to sin - remember the millstone around neck story?

Jude 12-13 "These are blemishes on your love-feasts, while they feast with you without fear, feeding themselves. They are waterless clouds carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the deepest darkness has been reserved for ever. "

I like that the Eucharist/Holy Communion was called a 'love-feast' that's awesome. Another reading of this verse is "They are shepherds who care only for themselves" - which is a throwback to Ezekiel 34 (I had to throw that in as Ezekiel pwns all). This is also contrasted with Christ as the Good Shepherd (John 10) as well as famous shepherds throughout scripture from Jacob, to Moses, to David. It has also been positted that these false teachers espoused their heresy at church gatherings - which were love feasts/Eucharistic Celebrations. I love the imagery he uses as well 'waterless clouds' - a reference to Proverbs 25:14, 'waves' - a reference to Isaiah 57:20 and the wandering stars reminiscent of those who falsely trusted astrology or astronomy I can never remember which one it is.

"for whom the deepest darkness has been reserved for ever" - that's pretty harsh again, but remember that this is almost directly the same as Psalm 23 - a promise to the faithful. "Though I walk through the valley of deepest darkness, I shall fear no evil, for Thou art with me". Strangely it seems in these two passages that possibly all followers of God must walk through the deepest darkness, however the faithful have a guide, the unfaithful are left to wander eternally. This reminds me of St. Augustine's "God had one son without sin, but he never had one without suffering".

Good Heathens - Pelagianism

I've been thinking alot lately (as usual) but about Chris Hedges the semi-christian-ish? author of 'I Don't Believe In Atheists' and another book calling the American Christian Right Fascists. But he has lived in awful conditions covering stories in El Salvador, Serbia, Croatia, the middle east and many places of conflict. He's been beaten, shot at, and imprisoned (wrongfully) just as a Journalist. An interview where he discusses his book and views is available at:http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=2036 it's very interesting. Where any of this ties to pelagianism is that he argues that someone being relgious (or Christian) has no effect on their behaviour as good or bad. I find that whatever the bible may say, from an empirical perspective this is certainly true. I know lots of people who have different religious views than I do and they are great people. And some of the worst people I know are Christians.

Right now I'm sure Jared and Augustine are getting pretty pissed off. Remember though that it was the Good Samaritan - a socially and religiously different character (they had a different torah - samaritan pentatuech, and disagreed with the Jews on where God told them to sacrifice and worship). I guess you could make the Augustinian argument that anytime someone does good who is not a Christian it is still by God's grace, but I don't see the world as that corrupted. St. Jerome said "God has bestowed us with free will. We are not necessarily drawn either to virtue or vice". It seems to me that this leaves the possibility that non-Christians can be good. Clement of Alexandria said "We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice" as well as "Each one of us who sins with his own free will, chooses punishment. So the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame.".

This seems like a viable option of a free will ... just ignore modern psychology and you're good. Also it seems that once again Church 'tradition' is in utter contradiction with itself. I'd like to see how the Catholics use theological gymnastics to get out of this, when it is clear doctrinally both in their church and in Reformed and Lutheran circles that every good deed comes from God's grace, and that man in no way is responsible for saving himself.

So once again the philosophical ramifications make no sense. On the one hand Augustine claiming God is good, he has a complete plan, and all who are saved, are saved because of his good plan. And then Pelagius who says everyone can choose good if they want.

And then we have reality which says that horrible things happen to good people, natural disasters kill infants, the world is not a fair place by any Aristotelian definition. But at the same time we seem to have free will, and yet the whole genealogy of Christ shows us that history is somehow linear and has a meaning... hmm I think I'll just go with Kierkegaard, Pascal, and Isaiah in saying that God is beyond our comprehension.

Corrections to my thoughts on Free Will

Ok, so Jared completely owned me on the debate about free will in his comment on my blog. I was waiting for him to do it again. He explained it in a way that I finally understood in saying that the Calvinist idea is not that we can't choose God as much as it is we don't choose God.

The idea is not that God has blocked the way for people to access him, but rather, all people are in their natural state blocked by their desires to turn to God. My horrible example to explain is this: I am right now able to sell everything I own to go help save the rainforest, but the truth is, I will never do this, to be honest I don't really care about the rainforest and so why would I do something completely against my own thoughts and instincts. It's kind of like that. So as of now I will have to stop baselessly attacking Calvinism and other systems I barely understand. I am still deciding whether I agree with it, but it certainly makes more sense.

And Jared clinched it by quoting St. Augustine, and when you really want to own someone in theology you go to those, because no one can fight with the Fathers. Though I still hold that most reformed thinkers reject many ideas of Augustine, like the inspiration of the Deutero-canon/Apocrypha, but that's another topic.