Did Augustine believe because Rome said so? An informed response to Roman Catholic claims

[deliveringit]

Plus, he does NOT say, "I would not have believed..." but "I should not believe..." You changed that over in "More Info" and also in your opening statement. Your rendition is more favorable to your thesis, since you are incorrectly using wrong verb tense. "I should not believe" is the correct rendering and captures my point that this is true not only in the past at the moment of first believing, but that it carries into the present.

[prchdaword]

curious, but are you this tedious with tenses in the Bible concerning justification, election and predestination?

[deliveringit]

Putting aside our obvious disagreement over the details, nonetheless, I want to compliment you on an excellent video, in that, you really take the time to look at the whole context, and you research others' exegesis. While I disagree with your conclusions, yet, I really appreciate your video and how you are concerned with context. Too many people only take little snippets.

[prchdaword]

yes, well at least this way listeners can have more to work with and decide on which interpretation does Augustine more justice =)

[deliveringit]

"the INITIAL arguments (if you want to call them that) that persuaded him of the truth were based on the authority of the Church" Yes, but they still do. E.G. at 3:56 in your video, "I will (future tense) keep to those who commanded me to believe the Gospel." He believed initially due to the Cath Church's authority, he still does, and will in the future. Also, 5:10, "Since both writings alike Cath. Auth. commends to me" That is present tense. Now -As a believer- Not just in the past.

[prchdaword]

your ignoring his statements about requesting scriptural proof from the Gospels/New Testament to prove the authority of the Church or Mani's claims. =/

[prchdaword]

Notice also that Augustine asks for Scriptural proof to support the authority of Mani. Augustine blatantly admits that that which the Scriptures teach is that which he will follow, whether Mani or the Church. This is why he says, "read me in the Gospel....will you read me the passage..." Augustine is still asking for the proof of authority FROM THE SCRIPTURES. If this is true, then the Church, as Augustine believes derives her authority FROM SCRIPTURE and God's REVELATION, not herself.

[deliveringit]

I had technical problems so don't know if my last comment made it. Basically what I wrote was that your whole thesis is that Aug's point about the believability of Scripture resting on the Auth. of the Cath. Church, is ONLY pertaining to an unbeliever. However, as I demonstrated in my last posts, that quote was from the section of his discourse where he is talking about HIMSELF -- a believer. Therefore, even for the BELIEVER, Aug is saying that they can only trust Scripture via the Cath. Ch.

[prchdaword]

yes, Augustine is himself a believer at this point and it is not in dispute. But what Augustine is saying is that the INITIAL arguments (if you want to call them that) that persuaded him of the truth were based on the authority of the Church and this would seem to be the case of how one should reason with "unbelievers" when attempting to convince them of the truth of the Gospel.

Augustine is not making a blanket statement attributing infallibility or ultimate authority to Rome...

[prchdaword]

Rather....he is dealing with a hypothetical about how one approaches dialogue with an unbeliever, especially a Manichean who is attempting to debunk the Gospel or teach contrarily.

In essence, when they assert their "authority" , the Church must exert hers. Either way, when the "unbeliever" is confronted with the choices, they must in essence submit to one authority over the other. Augustine is presupposing the authority of Rome over the one who accepts Mani's.

[deliveringit]

You completely missed my point. Your whole video's thesis (and that of Calvin's) is that Aug's quote about not believing the Gospel if it were not for the Cath Church, was only for the case of the "unbeliever (9:28)" or "stranger to the Faith (7:18)" or "unbelievers (7:43)." But Aug's quote was from that section where he was NOT talking about a hypth. "unbeliever" but about he, himself: the real man Augustin. Who was most definitely a believer at the time he wrote his statement.

[prchdaword]

I provide the whole quote and the source from which I read it in context. Augustine seems to be saying that the person with no committment to either side (the seeker, lets say) is INITIALLY persuaded by authority. Hence, he says as it was for himself that he would not have believed had it not been for the authority of the Church. Again, Augustine makes it clear that this argument is for those with no prior leanings. They have to "have faith" as it were, on the basis of authority.

[deliveringit]

Part 2: Other examples of Augustin after he changes from the hypothetical case to his own personal case (such change taking place at 2:46 in your video): 3:24, "That I believed... (FIRST PERSON past tense). 4:22, "That I got my faith in it... (FIRST PERSON past tense). 4:45, Scripture that I had believed (FIRST PERSON past tense). 5:23, "Which I have professed to believe (FIRST PERSON past tense)...These prove he is talking of himself and that he already does believe, not a hypoth. non-believer.

[prchdaword]

you are completely correct and I haven't argued otherwise. Augustine is dealing with a hypothetical situation and how a Manichean would deal with it and how he would deal with it.

No qualms about that at all and my basic point still stands.

[deliveringit]

PART 1: Sir, the whole basis of your video is demonstrably wrong: At 2:39 you read of the hypothetical man "a person not yet believing... How would you reply to HIM were HE to say..." Notice the pronouns are THIRD PERSON. Then, Augustin leaves that hypothetical case and moves to his own case (2:46): "For MY part..." -- FIRST PERSON. The rest of Augustin's words are then about he himself, and NOT the hypothetical non-believer. E.G., 2:56 "I have consented (past tense) to believe..." (CONT).

[mmmail1969]

JC founded the Roman Catholic Church (no other). The RCC did NOT possess known written records of the life and teaching of JC for a number of decades after He returned to Heaven. Fact of history - real world Christianity is not for game players!

[prchdaword]

sure, NT documents were not written right away, but that fact doesn't logically conclude that the RCC is the true Church.

What's with the anger and hate rhetoric?

[mmmail1969]

Quoting scripture is pointless. Rome WAS, because in the early Church there was no scripture. Tradition was first and hence Rome WAS. End of argument! (Age old story, give American's a copy of the Bible, you might as well give a mchine-gun to a monkey...."have you heaardd of Gesus...are you saved...pfft" God Bless the RCC - JC got it right THE FIRST TIME AROUND!

[prchdaword]

The Church has always had the Scriptures! EVen it was just the OT at first, there have always been Scriptures in the Church. Now, I would agree that there was not always a "Bible" as we know it today, but the Church was NEVER WITHOUT SCRIPTURES!

"End of Argument"? What argument? A mere assertion is not an argument, my friend. Premises that lead to a conclusion is an argument.

I find it incredible that you say quoting God's word is pointless. Very revealing though...Thanks for sharing it =)

[mmmail1969]

"Saul, Saul, why does thow persecutest ME"

[prchdaword]

such rhetoric with no substance...I think Rome made it clear that it is NOT the Church of Jesus Christ at the Council of Trent when they forever anathematized the true Gospel of Jesus Christ that saves my friend. If you really want to play the rhetoric game, it is pointless. I could easily say that YOU are the one persecuting Christ by arguing against the Gospel that was given to the Apostles and is preserved today in Scripture. Get out your scriptures and we can go from there =)

[mmmail1969]

ONLY, the RCC has the full authority of Jesus Chrsit on Earth. Repent now and turn away from your sins toward the Thrown of Saint Peter. No colour, orange, red, pink or blue will save you.

[prchdaword]

Color? eh?

Didn't Jesus say, "all authority has been given to me...?" and not "all authority has been given to the Church...or to Peter..."?

Why Can't the word of God, which Jesus was, have reflect and be Jesus' authority through the Holy Spirit who is also God?

[pbaylis1]

Bottom line: If you DELIBERATELY and pridefully choose to exist outside the Catholic Church, you are in danger of deserving Christ's admonishment in Luke 10:16. To anyone who will listen, I will continue to say....please please find out what the Catholic Church truly teaches and why it teaches it. Why have other diligent protestants, who took the time to properly study Scripture and the Catholic Church, already converted. They aren't fools and they aren't possessed. They are truly saved.

[prchdaword]

which ones? I trust you are not talking about Roger Beckwith or Scott Hahn? They were not that diligent of Protestants as you cannot even find where they defended Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura as Protestants.

I think you are deliberately inserting ideas and doctrines into Scriptures. Jesus is NOT the Catholic Church. Jesus' own words are recorded in Scripture, not contained within the Catholic Church. When one wants to hear Jesus, we can go straight to his words my friend.

[pbaylis1]

OK, so now we've clarified the context and true meaning of Augustine's statement. That's fine by Catholics. To a believer in the Word, find something from the Word. To a non-believer prove the authority of the Word by reference to the Catholic Church.

So, Augustine provides an example of the type of situation where an authority is needed to ensure, at least, that a Spirit-led exegesis is done, which would either support or refute the alleged heresy.

[prchdaword]

hmm...I don't think I agree with the "to a non-believer prove the authority of the Word by reference to the Catholic Church."

Augustine is not trying to prove the authority of the Scriptures here but is asking to prove the authority of Mane, essentially of an teacher outside of the Church. For instance, were someone asked to prove the authority of Josephy Smith at the time of his teachings, the Mormons would appeal to their own writings while the Christian would appeal to another authrotity..

[prchdaword]

Also, Augustine mentions nothing about exegesis at this point either. In the letter, rather, he demands that proof be offered from the Scriptures for the apostleship of Mane as proof can be deduced for the apostles including Paul in the Scriptures. But since there is no reference in the Scriptures to Mane or a prophecy of his coming, Augustine finds no reason to accept the teachings of Mane upon any authority.

[pbaylis1]

The fact that particular "doctrines" exist, though not SPECIFICALLY prophesied about in terms of their content, demonstrates that Scripture, though intended to be all that is necessary for salvation, lacks perspicuity, at least wrt heresies. Christ anticipated it, and indeed it comes as no surprise given satan's wiles. Christ not only anticipated it, but made provision for it by bestowing His bind/loose authority and by such things as warnings that in the end days false prophets would abound.

[prchdaword]

That does not follow at all. Scriptures purpose is to declare and define truth, not error. I mean are you going to tell me that the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus Christ is not clear in the Scriptures? Scriptures' purpose is not to be exhaustive but to give us what we need to know to be saved. To "complete" and "thoroughly equip" 2 Tim. 3:17

Also, in regards to the "binging/loosing" in Matthew 18 the context is clear in regards to discipline within the Church not necessarily doctrine.

[pbaylis1]

Scripture was INTENDED to provide the truth necessary for salvation. Christ warned of disunifying heresy, but we don't get any more detail. Yet, the advent of specific heresies demands urgent provision as much today as in the early church, having the potential to rob many of salvation. Satan hadn't used all his aces in Paul's time and still hasn't used them all today.

[pbaylis1]

An authority is needed despite Scripture's *intended* sufficiency for salvation. Paul said that the world couldn't contain all that Christ said/did (Jn 21:25). If we add God's foreknowledge of every potential heresy, maybe 2 worlds is enough? Now, you cannot argue successfully that knowing about and refuting these unspecified heresies is unnecessary for salvation. We certainly NEED to deal with heresy and codify the decisions for the faithful. We need Tradition + Magisterium.

[prchdaword]

You are arguing in a circle my friend. Why does there need to be an authority to provide "authorative interpretation" for something that is authorative in and of itself? Gods word-written or spoken-does not need another authority(a logically higher authority)to verify it or give validity to its clear teachings. Again,are you telling me that doctrines like the Trinity are not clear in Scripture? Is it not on the basis of another authority that people deviate from sCripture that leads to heresies?

[pbaylis1]

I'm not sure what you aren't getting. And I'm not sure I'm patient enough to pursue this.

Whereas I am leading you to a realisation of the necessity for Magisterium and Tradition, it is unfortunately you who are talking in circles and using false logic.

prchdaword: "God's word doesn't need another authority"

Indeed not. This is similar to the blunder you made re Mary worship. Exegeting God's word is hardly akin to challenging to its authority. God help us all if that were the case.

[pbaylis1]

I'm not sure what you're getting at re: doctrine of trinity not being clear in scripture. We're talking about things that aren't clear. The plethora of breakaway churches today, each exegeting scripture in a way they believe is defensible, is painful testament to Scripture's openness to interpretation. Absolutely an authority is needed to settle such matters.

"Is it not on the basis of another authority that people deviate from scripture that leads to heresies? "

Yes, that is my point.

[prchdaword]

actually, I'm pretty certain that if you examine their reasoning, many of the reasons they break away are not even exegetical. Some are based on personal and petty preferences, some are based on supposed interpretations not verified in the original languages, are done by men without proper training, etc...

The authority that settles them is the Scriptures. The language and meanings are pretty clear on doctrines. Where Scripture is silent, it is ok to allow freedom (like the color of carpet..)

[pbaylis1]

So, you've accounted for a large part of the mess we have, a mess resulting from confusion and rationalisation sans authority. We could categorise this group as the "ignorant".

The rest of the mess which thwarts Christ's desires that "all may be one" comes not from ignorance, but stubbornness and pride. I think the story about Luther wanting to burn the book of James in the stove because it didn't say what HE wanted it to say, is a perfect mental visual for this malady.

[prchdaword]

well, Luther was also part of a tradition that still existed then that did not accept James as canonical because the apostolic origin of James was still in doubt; at that time the book of REvelation and even 2 Peter was still a "doubtful" book because the apostolic connections to the work were not clear enough at the time so you can hardly blame him; and remember one of the tests of Scripture was unity in doctrine; Luther just didn't understand how James and Paul could fit together, he was human

[prchdaword]

Now, if it is on the basis of another authority that people deviate from SCripture, wouldn't submission to the authority of Scripture result in the belief in the truth? What makes you think that another authority ourside of Scripture can logically have more weight than another? For instance, why Rome instead of the Eastern Orthodox? or the Mormons? or the Watchtower society? What but Rome's own claims give her more weight over their authority?

[pbaylis1]

Let's agree that Christ intended "a single" church, which could not be called an "authority outside of Scripture" as you put it. Such a Church was formed in the pages of Scripture and given its authority through the words of Jesus Christ "Upon this rock.."...."keys to the kingdom of heaven"...etc. Most of the post-resurrection new testament consists of the early workings of this Church. So, I don't agree that it is somehow illicitly competing with other illicit authorities AGAINST Scripture.

[prchdaword]

I agree that Christ intended and HAS one Church. This Church is united in their confession of Christ as the son of God, which is the Rock of the Church. This Church is not limited to one visible expression even as a body does not have all the same visible expression. We are not all arms, eyes, etc...but in the diversity, there is a unity in Christ and in our common confession in the Gospel.

Where gospels differ, is where we part ways. The fundamental question is are our gospels the same ?

[pbaylis1]

And remember, at this time, the fledgling Church was being flooded with heresies. So, obviously, at that point in time, Holy Scripture was the key reference in the absence of the Church having already dealt with that particular heresy. Certainly Augustine is going to ask for proof from scripture. Thanks to these early efforts, Catholics now have Holy Scripture as their key source, plus tradition (where it was necessary to develop it) to counter error and heresy.

[pbaylis1]

However, Calvin attempts to frame it as these ignorant people who would believe men before they believed Scripture. Certainly, that is not the case. Heresies gain a foothold due to the lack of perspecuity of Scripture, or loopholes if you like, that permit their existence until the Church clarifies the matter. The Magesterium and Tradition essentially exist to CLOSE those loopholes. So one cannot hold it against a newcomer for seeking reference from a justified authority.

[prchdaword]

But its not Calvin doing that, its Augustine posing the hypothetical question. Augustine is asking the Manichees how they convince someone of the truthfulness of Mane who has never heard of Mane at all. Augustine's answer is that there is a preliminary authority given to an external source (in this case, for the one to be convinced of Christianity, to the Church).

Heresies gain a foothold because people give way to doctrines of demons not because the word isn't clear...

[pbaylis1]

It is Calvin who casts it in that light, not Augustine. And that has been the perennial problem for centuries. A Catholic says something and a protestant casts it in another light that would support its heretical teachings. If we pray to Mary, it is cast in the light of Mary worship. If we pray a litany or a rosary, we're indulging in "vain repetition".

[prchdaword]

To avoid this problem I read the passage from Augustine himself and it is pretty clear that he is posing a hypothetical question to a Manichean believer.

As per Mary,the act of praying is considered an act of worship.Maybe there is some merit to these charges that you should consider.

Remember what actually prompted the scholastic movement that led to the Reformation? Ad Fontes? "Back to the sources"?! I went to the source right away, not an interpretation of the source. that was 2ndary

[pbaylis1]

I think we've covered everything, particularly the point of the infant Church not yet having developed tradition to address the unexpected plethora of heresies, and thus would have recourse to whatever light Holy Scripture could shed on the matter.

Perhaps I over-credit you with intelligence. Pray is no more than speaking to a spirit. Kneeling is no more than reverence. But, worship is the acknowledgment of sovereignty (whether verbally, kneeling or riding a bike). Catholics know who God is.

[prchdaword]

But how can you say that heresies were unexpected? If you read 2 Timothy 3-4:5 you will see that Paul, in anticipation of his death, committed to Timothy that the SCriptures were able to "complete" and "thoroughly equip" Christians for ministry and knowledge unto salvation..."for the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching..." If Paul knew it was coming, and he told Timothy about upcoming heresies, what did he say to use to counter them? The God-breathed Scriptures!!!

[pbaylis1]

Heresies themselves, no. But the exact makeup of each heresy, yes. I am speaking of the need to address each one that does come up. Satan is wily. The Holy Scriptures warn of heresies, but obviously don't go into each one in detail.

[prchdaword]

no no, of course not, but the Scriptures themselves are sufficient to refute each heresy that has arose in the Church. Athanasius argued that against a corrupted Arian papacy even! Athanasius contra mundum? remember the Arian ascendancy?

[prchdaword]

Peter also in 2 Peter commits to his audience the Scriptures as a "light in a dark place". In 2 Pt 1:19-21 he compares the origin of the words of Scripture with as from the Holy Spirit while those of "false prophets" (2:1-22) as originating from themselves. Hence, the sure "light" in the darkness is the SCriptures!! Not tradition or teachings of men, but the words of God produced through the Holy Spirit through men who spoke from God and we have record of their speakings in Holy Scripture alone.

[pbaylis1]

No-one argues that Scriptures are a light in a dark place, indeed the PRIMARY light. But what ELSE does God permit to be used as a light when satan creates confusion? A spirit-filled authority and whatever it binds and looses, i.e. Magisterium & Tradition. Christ anticipated the need for these: "Whatever you bind...loose...". And we see examples of it in action in the epistles. Here's a handful just from from Acts15: 15:1-2, 15:3-4, 15:23-25, 15:28.

[prchdaword]

What did the apostles quote? They quoted from Scripture to show that the Gentiles would indeed be allowed in the fold in the same manner that the Jews would be, through faith, and not through external keeping of the law since the Scriptures themselves recorded that the Jews had not kept the law. Also, that example comes from a time when Sola Scriptura would not have been relevant as revelation was still being given by God through the apostles. It was James who presides that by the way,not Peter

[prchdaword]

Peter says that the "ignorant and unstable" twist the word of God. They have to twist it because it is already "straight". It is not something that is unclear; wicked men attempt to muddy its clear waters but the elect are not decieved as they hear the true voice of their Shepherd, Jesus Christ in the Scriptures and through the Holy Spirit. (cf. 2 pet. 3:16)

[pbaylis1]

I'm still not sure how any of this helps your case. With Augustine's meaning clarified by Calvin himself as being that: a ignorant newcomer could not be swayed by anything produced in the gospel unless a justified authority first "certified" it, we clearly see the extremely important role of authority. For what Augustine and Calvin say is absolutely true. When attempting to convert any atheist, for example, would not the atheist wish to know by whose authority the evangelist speaks? Certainly!

[prchdaword]

Well I don't think Calvin's point in clarifying what Augustine meant, nor mine, is to further my own view only to show that Augustine has been taken out of context by modern Roman Catholic apologist.

[pbaylis1]

Well, that would be one of the few times. If you've listened to any catholic vs protestant debate for example, it is generally the Catholic running around stamping out the fires of out-of-context exegeses.

[prchdaword]

depends whose debating. But if you listen to Dr. White debate, it is Dr. White that is sticking to scripture and sound exegesis ;)

[pbaylis1]

Why argue against something that makes no sense? The Catholic Rule of Faith is very very clear: It is Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium. No informed Catholic believes, or will draw from Augustine's statement, that tradition supercedes scripture. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[prchdaword]

Wait a minute...help me to understand...you just said in another comment that I should read the early if I wanted truth and now there is a early Fathers teachings that "couldn't be further from the truth" essentially?

When did Augustine say that tradition supercedes Scripture?

[pbaylis1]

No. You appear to be arguing, in this video, against a position that no catholic takes (or should take if they knew their rule of faith), i.e. that scripture supercedes tradition. This is not, nor ever has been, the catholic position, and should not be deduced from Augustine's statement. Catholics understand that the highest and perfect source is Holy Scripture, but that Holy Scripture is not enough when dealing with, for example, the intracacies and subtleties of heresies. (cont'd)

[prchdaword]

I'm actually answering a question based on a quote given by Augustine in which he said "I would not have believed were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church". See the description.

Now, it is my assertion that if one reads what Augustine wrote in context that he is not deferring authority at all to tradition or absolute authority to Rome but rather presupposes the priority of the SCriptures above those as that is where is demanding proof from his opponents to settle the matter.

[pbaylis1]

(cont'd from previous)

Such intracacies and subtleties are evident when speaking to any scholarly protestant and would perhaps remain unresolvable except for tradition and the magisterium.

[DonusAmbrose]

Interesting video. Regarding that last comment you made at the end of your video, you said that without scriptural evidence, Augustine would not believe anything the Manichaeans had to say.

What's your commentary on the Care of the Dead 3:

"In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Howbeit even if it were no where at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church..."

[prchdaword]

let me see if I have that work and I can look into it

[DonusAmbrose]

Thanks

[prchdaword]

Augustine doesn't seem to be saying that the Church has all authority. He is simply saying that even if the subject were not touched upon in historical works, the authority of the Church is not so small as to have no opinion on the matter. This seems relevant since the question he is dealing with doesn't seem to be explicitly answered in Scripture.

Needless to say, asserting some authority is not exerting supreme authority is what I would argue here.

[DonusAmbrose]

Thanks for the comment. From what I have read of Augustine, he treats the authority of the Church as a "rule of faith" (citing On Christian Doctrine 3:2:2).

He provides the rule of faith, found in the authority of the Church and in the plainer passages of scripture, in order to interpret other scriptures which are ambiguous.

So he seems to equate the authority alongside other scriptures.

[prchdaword]

Thats interesting. I have heard the Fathers generally held to a "rule of faith" which was basically the doctrines professed in the Apostles' Creed and the "analogy of faith" was the method of interpretation in which one uses the explicit passages/clear to interpret the implicit/ambiguous passages

[CASSMAN777]

Romanists trying to quote Agustine is just their atempt to nullify the word of God to follow their traditions (Mark7:6-8). It doesn't matter what Agustine supposley said, becasue not even Agustine can nullify the Word of God. When Romanists do this, they just disprove their own church even more.

[prchdaword]

Interesting point

[CASSMAN777]

Thank you. It annoys me when romanists say their church is right because some guy a few thousand years ago said so. They do this because they can see that their church is totally unbiblical, so they justify this problem by quoting and oftenly taking quotes out of context by men other than Chirst, to try to justify their unbiblical claims.

[prchdaword]

Yup. in this case, Augustine is REALLY taken out of context as he is dealing with a hypothetical situation about converting somebody who doesn't first lend credibility to Mani. Augustine is basically saying that people give credibility toward men before they give it to God (as our sinfulness is so inclined to do) and that is why he first believed the Church but he is clearly asking for Scriptural proof as the ultimate arbiter of proper faith.