Problems with Augustine

[Carpathian Wolf]

Augustines Platonism blinded him to three major understandings of the Christian tradition.

First, Augustine failed to grasp the important distinction of Gods essence and energies for understanding the relationship of the creation with the Creator.

Second, Augustine embraced Platonic eudaemonism for understanding the telos of the Christian life. This eudaemonism leads Augustine and his successors to the possibility of the apprehension of the divine essence.

Third, Augustine failed to understand the Cappadocian teaching on the hypostatic relations in the Trinity, leading him to develop the heretical doctrine of the filioque. Essentially, Augustine's theological method of credo ut intelligam is criticized as being an incorrect approach to matters of truth.

Very interesting video for those wondering about Augustine.

[Carpathian Wolf]

That's what I thought.

[SigniferOne]

That's what I thought.

...Are you kidding?

Just the fact that you posted this a mere ten minutes after your original post, a post which in addition was a Youtube argument, makes any future responses to you completely worthless. Enjoy living and arguing with your self.

[Strelok]

Just the fact that you posted this a mere ten minutes after your original post

Which was not ten minutes.

a post which in addition was a Youtube argument

It was uploaded on YouTube. The person speaking is not the YouTube uploader.

And even so, so what? The mere fact that something is on YouTube doesn't make it of less quality.

makes any future responses to you completely worthless.

According to you, at least.

Enjoy living with your self

Unbased assumption.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I posted this 2 days ago not 10 minutes ago....how humiliating

[Monarchist]

You know, I am beginning to care less and less about Filioque, Trinitarianism, and other things. Who are we to pontificate on God's real nature? Perhaps everything originates from the Holy Spirit; perhaps the Son is this and the Father is that. Who cares? The point is that Jesus Christ, God-Man, died for our sins and was raised three days later. Forty days passed, and He went to Heaven to watch over us and conduct His symphony of ages. Has God ever asked us to argue over His nature? I don't believe so! This whole thing about the Trinity, Monophysitism, etc. really bothers me, because we really have no business in that arena.

[Carpathian Wolf]

You know, I am beginning to care less and less about Filioque, Trinitarianism, and other things. Who are we to pontificate on God's real nature? Perhaps everything originates from the Holy Spirit; perhaps the Son is this and the Father is that. Who cares? The point is that Jesus Christ, God-Man, died for our sins and was raised three days later. Forty days passed, and He went to Heaven to watch over us and conduct His symphony of ages. Has God ever asked us to argue over His nature? I don't believe so! This whole thing about the Trinity, Monophysitism, etc. really bothers me, because we really have no business in that arena.

The importance is so that you don't make further mistakes concerning God and fall into heresy. It's like unraveling a sweater by a single thread. The filioque for example, if the HS proceeds from the Father AND the Son then the HS becomes subservient to the other two. The Trinity is broken. There is no more divine hierarchy. The Trinity becomes a duality with God the Father and God the Son, while the Holy Spirit is just "an energy" between the two.

Original sin specifically the papal doctrine of it leads to immaculate conception, leads to the co-redemptrix bit and some fit Maria into the spot of the HS as the third God head. There's different variations on it.

If you're a Christian you believe in the bible. And the bible states clearly that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against God's Church, to follow the traditions by mouth or written down. The Church isn't just buildings but the body of Christ as such the canons and dogmas aren't just something "some guys agreed upon" but things inspired by God.

Now if you don't study the Trinity and understand exactly what balance of man and God Christ is does this mean you go to hell? I sincerely doubt it. We're not all called to be scholars on theology. I doubt very much Saint Constantine could really discern or the thief on the cross. But their Faith is what matters.

At the same time if you are able to discern and understand these concepts it's probably better that you follow the Church's teachings if you have questions.

[Monarchist]

The importance is so that you don't make further mistakes concerning God and fall into heresy. It's like unraveling a sweater by a single thread. The filioque for example, if the HS proceeds from the Father AND the Son then the HS becomes subservient to the other two. The Trinity is broken. There is no more divine hierarchy. The Trinity becomes a duality with God the Father and God the Son, while the Holy Spirit is just "an energy" between the two.

Original sin specifically the papal doctrine of it leads to immaculate conception, leads to the co-redemptrix bit and some fit Maria into the spot of the HS as the third God head. There's different variations on it.

Falling into heresy isn't possible if people don't preach about things they can never be sure about. I am personally on the fence regarding Filioque, because I consider it totally unimportant in humanity's salvation. The point is that the Father did X, the Son did Y, the Holy Spirit did Z, and God did X/Y/Z. If I do not denounce or support Filioque, can I be called a heretic for simply admitting that I don't know which is true?

Just for the sake of argument, however: why does the Holy Spirit proceeding from both Father and the Son somehow suddenly make the Spirit of lesser value? Adam proceeded from all three; he must, by your logic, be lesser than the Trinity, and yet our job as the sons of Adam is to become more like God. Just because two of the three might have made the one does not make the one lesser. Is the son of a mother and a father less a human being because of it? Someone who believes in Filioque can easily turn the tables and say "if the Father made both the Son and the Spirit, are they not lesser than the Father?" Lastly, if the Trinity are co-eternal, what does it matter when one of them came into it, and who proceedeth from who? The point is that they are. It seems wicked arrogance to pretend we know the origins of the most unknowable Mystery of all times, and to say "oh, those silly Roman Catholics and their Father/Son nonsense!"

Can't all Christians just say "God is Three and One", without actually trying to explain that which we can never know?

[Carpathian Wolf]

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque

It's a decent article. It explains more in depth the consequences of the filioque.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Maybe its meant to be so confusing that no one can understand it and hence make more believers, Like December 25th is both the birth of Christ, Sol Invictus, and Mithras.

[Manco]

ONly the 25th of December isn't the birth of either Christ or Mithras.
Christ was born probably in the summer and only celebrated on the 25th, while Mithras (the Greco-Roman one) wasn't born at all, he arose from a rock. The confusion about Mithras and the 25th stems from Mithras also being called Sol Invictus, but he wasn't the same as the (Late Roman) Sol Invictus.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Not from what I read. The followers of Sol Invictus and Mithras celebrated their respected gods Bdays on the 25th and the christians followed suit in the 4th century.

[Carpathian Wolf]

The date of Christmas was changed to December 25th to stop the faithful from partaking in pagan celebrations. In effect it was a move by the Church to defeat paganism. It's always funny to me when people say the Orthodox were trying to merge their faith with the pagan faith when in actuality they were against even the slightest changes. Schism happened over much more minor things such as the filioque and the dual nature of Christ and yet we are expected to believe some sort of pagan merging conspiracy? Also the idea that it's confusing on purpose to get more followers is just silly.

[Manco]

Once again Mithras wasn't ever born, and Christmas is only on the 25th because a hugely popular holiday (various incarnations of solstice) was already during that time.

So one isn't relevant, and the other isn't due to some conspiracy or because all religions are similar, rather because the early Church had some brains.

[Monarchist]

Carpathian Wolf, you are my hero for stating that. There are far too many non-Christians who earn a liberal history degree and suddenly shout about Christian paganism. It's quite hilarious.

[motiv-8]

Carpathian Wolf, you are my hero for stating that. There are far too many non-Christians who earn a liberal history degree and suddenly shout about Christian paganism. It's quite hilarious.

Uh, maybe when they earn a liberal history degree without taking a single class on early Christianity...

[MathiasOfAthens]

I never said anything about christian Paganism, whatever that is. Im sorry you misinterpreted what I wrote but I meant all along that it was a move by the church to defeat paganism. A festival for Sol Invictus, however, was celebrated every year on december 25th. Somewhere along the line Mithras was associated with Sol Invictus. Mithras being the god Mithra from Zoroastrianism. As Mithras became familiar to the roman empire it began to represent the sun god Sol Invictus, both religions were celebrated on the 25th. Jesus himself was not worshipped on the 25th until the Nicaean council in 320 made it his official bday. A large portion of the army worshipped Mithras and Constantine in some regards sought army support, as a usurper.

Yeah Mithras in the persian religion was born from a rock but it was celebrated on the 25th as much as jesus is and wasnt born either.

[SigniferOne]

I am interested to see when, and by whom, Augustine was condemned of heresy in the ancient days. And if he wasn't condemned of heresy, then his views are entirely Orthodox.

In other words, either his views on Original Sin are wrong, or not. And if they're wrong, then they should've been condemned by anyone in the early Church. Plus, the church should not have condemned Pelagius whose views on original sin were exactly like yours Carpathian. You, and a man condemned of heresy, were entirely in agreement on original sin.

Secondly-- it was stated that the views on Sin of the Western Church were eventually changed later on, from what Augustine originally taught. I'd like to see evidence to support any of that.


PS. Also, I will ask to please avoid posting any external links in support of an argument.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I am interested to see when, and by whom, Augustine was condemned of heresy in the ancient days. And if he wasn't condemned of heresy, then his views are entirely Orthodox.

In other words, either his views on Original Sin are wrong, or not. And if they're wrong, then they should've been condemned by anyone in the early Church. Plus, the church should not have condemned Pelagius whose views on original sin were exactly like yours Carpathian. You, and a man condemned of heresy, were entirely in agreement on original sin.

Secondly-- it was stated that the views on Sin of the Western Church were eventually changed later on, from what Augustine originally taught. I'd like to see evidence to support any of that.


PS. Also, I will ask to please avoid posting any external links in support of an argument.

Buddha wasn't condemned as a heretic either. I guess he was Orthodox too by your standards? Africa was over run by the Vandals around Augustine's death and his works had not yet been published. In any case there were several saints who disagreed on several occasions with Augustine respectfully. My goal isn't t show Augustine as a heretic, far from it, simply the west took parts of his writings and the vatican expanded upon the theology perversely. Protestants being the rebellious children of papism took this with them.

Where is it said that the views of Sin were changed in the west later on from Augustine?

Lastly I want to imprint upon you once again that the Orthodox are not Pelagius or semi Pelagius. I've explained in the other thread.

[motiv-8]

Buddha wasn't condemned as a heretic either. I guess he was Orthodox too by your standards?

That might be the lamest non-response that could have possibly been profferred.