The obvious synthesis of this is that while God works to extend His grace and draw men unto Himself, man has the choice to accept or reject that grace, which then becomes the basis of judgement. Without this, no calvinistic argument for God's judgement can even credibly be made.
First, I’ve read Augustine; it’s pretty thickly Biblical. I respect your opinion but I’m sure you realize that his use of source texts is denser, more perspicuous, more consistent with the unanimous opinion of the patres, and much more careful to avoid assumptions than yours
-
-
Undoubtedly you have different treatments in mind that you consider better models than your own exegesis, I understand that - just realize why this sounds weak as a defense of your own position
-
It is worth actually reading the “philosophical” parts of Augustine carefully b/c it makes the distinction between Christian doctrine and Christian philosophy v clear
-
The whole point is that there can't really be a "Christian" philosophy. There can be philosophies which Christians can (at least in parts) accept, but a "Christian adaptation of, say, Plato is spurious. It's attempting to reconcile systems that God tells us not to reconcile
-
lol, there is. when Augustine is asking doctrinal questions, he focuses on Bible. But accepting Biblical doctrine gives him (Christian) opinions on certain matters. Now when he goes to ask *philosophical* questions, what happens?
-
Augustine didn’t think the Bible was a philosophy handbook of course. He has a letter or sermon condemning ppl who bring ridicule upon the Church by acting as though the articles of faith give them technical expertise on q’s astronomy, etc
-
But he still does have faith in the truth of the doctrine the Gospel *does* contain, and those truths can in effect serve as axioms for philosophical inquiry
-
You say he’s a platonist and elsewhere imply he fell afoul of Paul’s strictures on pagan vanity
-
But he wasn’t a platonist. Augustine’s philosophy is bizarre. His answers to a number of phil. questions are simply unique (well, him and Tertullian)
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I've read him too. With all due respect, despite his professed concern for contextual literalism, his hermeneutics were extremely allegorical. For that reason, if no other, he definitely can't be said to have taken a perspicacious approach to Scripture
-
oh, the threefold-meaning thing was everywhere in the early church; but Augustine rarely builds arguments on allegorice typically the idea is, *in the commentary*, you provide the three senses for transparency, and then in dogmatics you check for consistency at end
-
(vs low church habit of only citing the verses that agree with position and letting someone else worry about in utramque partem)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also highly doubtful that he can be said to be consistent with the unanimous opinion of earlier fathers since there wasn't unanimity anywise
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.