There are two issues I'd like to address in response. The first problem is with trying to use philosophy to address something which philosophy is incompetent to address.
-
-
Replying to @AristotradX4 @QuasLacrimas and
Interpretation of Scripture according to the ordinary rules of language is why we even have Scripture in human languages. Scripture is perspicuous. We don't need philosophy to be able to understand what God wants us to understand about Him.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AristotradX4 @QuasLacrimas and
Indeed, given the warnings about philosophy and man's wisdom that Scripture gives us (Col. 2:8, I Cor. 2-3), we would be wise not to try to make firm claims about the nature, will, and Being of God on the basis of philosophy...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AristotradX4 @QuasLacrimas and
...especially not when those conclusions contradict the testimony of Scripture. One problem with Calvinism is that it's not so much a system of doctrine as it is a distilled form of Augustinian philosophy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AristotradX4 @QuasLacrimas and
Unfortunately, Augustine's whole referential framework was in his attempt to distance himself from his former false gnosto-philosophy of Manicheanism, so his attempts were still essentially extant within that paradigm, rather than within a *scriptural* one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AristotradX4 @QuasLacrimas and
Second, your particular argument is falsely premised. The extension of grace is not the same thing as God choosing for us to "choose" to be saved. We know that God's will is for all to repent and be saved (II Peter 3:9, I Tim. 2:4).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AristotradX4 @QuasLacrimas and
The grace of God which brings salvation has appeared to all men (Titus 2:11). Yet, we also know that this doesn't and won't happen Matt. 7:14).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AristotradX4 @QuasLacrimas and
While philosophy may find this mystifying, the biblicist merely understands that God draws us, but sovereignly chooses to give us the choice to accept or reject His grace
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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
-
-
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @AristotradX4 and
(vs low church habit of only citing the verses that agree with position and letting someone else worry about in utramque partem)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.