Calvinism Defended:
The Historical Augustine and Myopia
By
This is the 30th section of the e-mail exchange I had with Bill, an individual who objected to Calvinism. Click here to go back to the table of contents, or here to go to the full 88 page exchange.
Bill Writes: Read what Philip Schaff said about Augustine and Christianity before Augustine. You will find my points about Augustine well established if you are willing to do some research about the early Church. Many western Christians (Roman Catholic and Calvinist) are myopic about the beliefs of Christians around the world and through the ages.
My Response:
I have read what Schaff stated about Augustine and Christianity before
Augustine, and I honestly cannot find anything even remotely close to what you
have been saying. Maybe you can
provide an exact reference (i.e., volume and page number(s)).
In the meantime, I have taken the liberty to provide some of the things
that Schaff did say:
In commenting on Augustines’ Confessions,
Scahff says:
“Of
all autobiographies none has so happily avoided the reef of vanity and
self-praise, and none has won so much esteem and love through its honesty and
humility as that of St. Augustine…Here we see the great church leader of all
times “prostrate in the dust, conversing with God, basking in His love…”
He puts away from himself all honor, all greatness, all beauty, and lay them
gratefully at the feet of the All-merciful. The reader feels on every hand that Christianity is no dream
or illusion, but truth and love, and he is carried along in adoration of the
wonderful grace of God.” (Vol 3,
p. 990)
Schaff notes Augustine’s journey from the schools
of Madaura, to his stays in Rome and Milan, and his:
“wanderings
through the labyrinth of carnal pleasures, Manichaeism mock-wisdom, Academic
skepticism, and Platonic idealism; till at last the prayers of his mother, the
sermons of Ambrose, the biography of St. Anthony, and, above all, the Epistles
of Paul, as so many instruments in the hand of the Holy Ghost, wrought in the
man of 33 years that wonderful change which made him an incalculable blessing to
the whole Christian world…” (vol 3, p. 991).
By the way, St. Anthony is regarded as the founder of monasticism in the
East (ref, Christianity Through the Ages, by Earle Cairns, p. 145).
More
quotes:
“He
was especially devoted to the poor, and, like Ambrose, upon exigency, caused the
church vessels to be melted down to redeem prisoners.”
(Vol 3, p. 94)
“He
was the champion of the orthodox doctrine against Manichean, Donatist, and
Pelagian.” (Vol 3, p. 994).
That’s
interesting, is it not? Note, while you have been equating Augustine with Mani,
history reports otherwise.
“He
left no will, for in his voluntary poverty he had no earthly property to dispose
of, except his library; this he bequeathed to the church…” (Vol 3, p. 996).
“His
ideas fell like living seed into the soil of Europe, and produced abundant
fruits in nations and countries of which he had never heard.”
(Vol 3, p. 997)
This
is in direct contradiction of your view of the fruit produced by Augustinianism.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but at least Schaff was
intellectually honest enough about the true fruit produced by Augustinianism,
even though he vehemently disagreed with the Augustianian doctrine.
“Augustine…is
a philosophical and theological genius of the first order, towering like a
pyramid above his age, and looking down commandingly upon succeeding centuries.
He had a mind uncommonly fertile and deep, bold and soaring; and with it,
what is better, a heart full of Christian love and humility.”
(Vol 3, p. 997).
“He
combined the creative power of Tertullian with the churchly spirit of Cyprian,
the speculative intellect of the Greek church with the practical tact of the
Latin.” (Vol 3, p. 997).
So much for being “myopic.”
“The
centre of his system is the free redeeming grace of God in Christ, operating
through the actual, historical church. He
is evangelical or Pauline in his doctrine of sin and grace, but catholic (that
is, old catholic, not Roman Catholic) in his doctrine of the church.”
(Vol 3, pp. 998-999).
This answers your assertions about
Manichaeism/Gnosticism, Neo-Platonism. Instead
of tracing Augustine’s views on sin and grace (i.e., the gospel) to
Manichaeism, etc., Schaff roots them in the teaching of the Apostle Paul.
“He
refers to the most distinguished persons of Greece and Rome; he often
alludes…to the earlier Greek and Latin fathers; to Eastern and Western
heretics.” (Vol 3, p. 1001).
As for your singling out Roman
Catholics and Calvinists as being “myopic” about the beliefs of Christians
around the world and through the ages, to be “myopic,” as I understand it,
is to be shortsighted, narrow-minded, and to lack tolerance.
So, I take this to mean that you are saying that Calvinists are
shortsighted and/or intolerant of the beliefs of Christians around the world and
through the ages. A couple of
points here:
1. With all due respect Bill, but have you not also displayed
the same intolerance and short-sightedness concerning the beliefs of Calvinists?
You are maintaining that your position is the correct one, and mine is
the wrong one, and then you go so far as to presuppose and judge the condition
of my soul when you saying: “turn to the Lord,
and receive freedom and power in the Holy Ghost!”
As much as I think that the Reformed view is correct, I would never come
to a conclusion that you, or anyone else, was not a believer simply because they
rejected Calvinism. I would definitely maintain that their position was contrary
to Biblical Christianity, and had serious implications concerning the Gospel
because it fundamentally undermines the perfect work of Christ on the cross.
However, I would not, and neither do Calvinists that I know and read,
come to the conclusion that non-Reformed Christians are going to hell simply
because they are not Reformed.
2. You have made precious little direct appeal to Scripture, but
have instead offered one ad hominen argument after another, woven through one
thread of logical fallacy after another. Then,
you have incorrectly and unfairly (my opinion) equated Calvinism with
Manichaeism, among other things. And,
finally, your comments throughout belay a serious lack of a true understanding
of what Calvinists actually teach and believe.
That for which you accuse others can rather easily be leveled against you
as well Bill.
3. In
terms of intolerance, or narrow-mindedness, let me just state for the record
that the truth, by its very nature, is both of those things.
That is the whole point, is it not, when we say that something is either
true, or false? We do not tolerate
false doctrine any more than you do. We
are passionate about defending the Gospel, just as you are (of course, based on
your comments, I do believe that you are preaching a false gospel).
Was Jesus myopic when He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life,
no one comes to the Father but by Me.”? Was
Peter myopic when he said that there is no other name given among men by which
they must be saved? Was Paul myopic
when he aptly described the sovereignty of God in salvation, and then
anticipated the objection, and said “who are you oh man to reply against
God?”
4.
As for not tolerating other Christians and their beliefs (in terms of
persecuting them, etc.), I would agree that there have been deep failings in the
past with regard to this. However,
this is something that can be leveled against just about every Christian
“sect” (for lack of a better word), to include the Anabaptists, who were
quite intolerant and violent in their opposition to Zwingli and others.
Thus, as the point was made earlier, we must not read our 21st
century “sensibilities” back into history, and then condemn those who do not
have the same commitment to “religious freedom” and pluralism as we do.
Thus, your charge of us being
myopic appears to me to be yet another rock that you’re throwing, unfairly I
might add, instead of just dealing with the very real and voluminous exegetical
appeal that is made by Calvinists in support of their position (a far cry from
Rome, I might add).
If you had read my article, you
would have seen that we are certainly not “myopic” in the sense that we are
maintaining that only Calvinists are Christians, as you have unfairly charged.
Your entire critique has been
centered on undermining the character of those who hold to these doctrines, and
then trying to connect them to the views held by heretics.
Who is it that is being myopic here Bill?