Augustine of Hippo: Orthodox views

[Gregory]

I have heard mixed stories about the Orthodox church's views of Augustine. Some call him "saint Augustine," and others "blessed Augustine," and some just "Augustine."

Is he officially a saint in the Orthodox church? If not, what are the reasons?

[Thomas Garland]

I have even seen Augustine described as 'the great heresiarch' by a conservative Orthodox source (I think it was a ROCOR website).

Gregory's query is very timely for me, as I was intending to put a request on this message board for a discussion about Orthodox approaches to the problem of Free Will.

Matthew Steenberg has put an excellent essay on Maximus the Confessor's notion of free will in the Person of Christ elswhere on this website, but, as a fairly new Orthodox (though interested in Orthodoxy for very many years), I should be most interested in information about Orthodox views of the Augustine-Pelagius controversy and also in being given some signposts to further reading (especially in the Fathers) on human free will in our relationship with God.

As I understand it, from the little I have been able to glean, Orthodox theologians appear to see Augustine and Pelagius as two extremes.

I beleieve there are other aspects of Augustine's work that are not considered very Orthodox.

Many thanks.

Thomas Garland

[John Curtis Dunn]

The controversy within the Orthodox Community does not revolve around the question, "Is Augustine an Orthodox Saint." This question is resolved without great difficulty. The answer is found in answering another question, "Is there an Orthodox feast [Divine Liturgy celebrated in memory of...]for Augustine." The answer is. "Yes," this settles the first question.

The controversy around the Orthodox memory of St. Augustine concerns "which teachings of his are Orthodox [meaning received as Orthodox within the Orthodox Church] and which are his own heresies [meaning his own personal opinions in contra-Orthodox]. Because St. Augustine's teachings are so widely revered within the other-doxical Christian assemblies his errors are magnified. Which is to say what might have been a small [meaning not widely received as Orthodox] error in Augustine's time has become a major deviation from the true Faith within our own.
God forbid anyone should take any error posted on this forum by sincere Orthodox Christians who are attempting to explain and or defend the Orthodox Faith against one or more of the congruent errors found within our own milieu and develop it into a course of faith which results in a theological rift leading many outside of the fold of Orthodoxy and keeping many more from entering in to her Holy Fount.

Secondly, all Orthodox Christians who die in communion with the Church [which is really the only defining characteristic of who is an Orthodox Christian] are blessed. Indeed, all may be Saints, the distinction is made between those who have been revealed within the Church as such, thus worthy of a Divine Liturgical feast of eternal memory. However, in that the Orthodox Christian remembers all who have died on the anniversary of their death within the context of a pannykhida, and their name is kept eternal through such rememberances, all who have died in the communion of Orthodoxy may be revered as Saint, at least privately. However again, the term of Saint is usually kept to honor those who have been glorified as such [meaning their memory is kept by all Orthodox Christians everywhere], as is St. John Chrysostom among many.

Eternal Memory and Blessed Repose on this Theophany of our Lord Jesus Christ through which the Tri-unity of God has been revealed, to all who have reposed within the communion of the Orthodox Church.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I think that simply branding Augustine as 'saint' or 'heretic' is to be far too broad and sweeping in the assessment of a man whose theological writings are vast and whose range of thought, at least in terms of how wide a scope of it is extant in his writings, goes beyond that of most other writers in the history of the Christian Church. This is certainly at play in the fact that the Orthodox Church, in a large (oecumenical) sense, has never blanketly condemned him: much (much) of what Augustine says is correct and proper, and of inestimable aid in defining the beliefs of the Church. Yet the Church also has not added him to the ranks of the unqualified saints, either; for much of what he says is incorrect, certainly heretical in specific areas of doctrine. But when one thinks about it, this is generally true of most individuals. Those whom God purifies so wholly as to be correct in every single utterance are very rare; most great saints have made their fair share of errors. Humans are, after all, fallible creatures.

A good example is St Basil of Caesarea, one of the three Cappadocian Fathers whose writings on the Trinity were greatly to aid in the Church's definative answer to Arianism and the Trinitarian Controversy of the fourth and fifth centuries. St Basil is certainly considered a great saint, a pillar of Orthodoxy in every sense of the word: the Church honours him with multiple commemorations, a Liturgy bearing his name and containing several of his prayers, etc. Yet St Basil was not without his errors. For more than a brief while he espoused homoiousianism which is not wholly concordant with the Nicene Creed (though Basil believed it was). He never directly admitted of the full divinity of the Holy Spirit in the same sense as the Father and the Son (though his On the Holy Spirit remains one of the Church's chief works on the Spirit). But there has never been great concern with these things: it is only expected that a single individual, struggling with the ineffable mysteriousness of God, will err on some points of belief. What is essential is a core of right belief, a willingness to be taught and corrected by the Church when in error. These St Basil had in spades. Augustine had the same qualities, though perhaps he held too hard-and-fast to certain beliefs that the Church deemed (and deems) incorrect.

There is no doubt that Augustine is errant on many points -- most notably and importantly (in my opinion) in his views on the free will of humanity and the resultant notion of predestination, and also in his views on the character of atonement in salvation. But it would take a biased person indeed to see only error in Augustine's teaching; the Orthodox Church, as well as Western Christianity, lies much in the debt of Augustine. And again, this is certainly a factor in the fact that Augustine has never been blanketly condemned, even while admitting his more glaring errors. There is much that is saintly in Augustine; there is much that is not. In this sense he is like most faithful men and women in the Church. Yet most who read his works would agree that there is something quite reverant about many of his reflections. Perhaps he is not quite so an unqualified 'saint' as some in the Church are, but he certainly is to some degree. I tend to favour the title 'Blessed Augustine'.

He thus makes for intensely intriguing reading for Orthodox, because a journey through his writings is always one of 'detective work': picking out the heresies from the true doctrine; dividing the good from the bad and discovering a remarkable picture of Christianity as it was struggling to be understood by a man who, without question, cared deeply about it.

INXC, Matthew

[Mark Kern]

I have been looking for a copy of one volume of Augustine's works called "The Retractions", but it is out of print and unavailable. Relevant to the discussion about Augustine, does anyone know what he "retracted". I have been hesitant to quote Augustine on any matters without knowing "the rest of the story".

[M.C. Steenberg]

The 'Retractions' (Lat. Retractiones) is a work that Augustine composed toward the end of his 'career' (c. AD 426/427), and is perhaps one of the most valuable assests he's left modern scholarship. The translation of the title as 'Retractions' is probably a bit misleading, as we tend to think of a 'retraction' as a later denial of some previous statement. Augustine's Retractiones follow the concept of a more literal translation of that Latin term: a re-tracing of his previous writings, going back over his endeavours in chronological order (this 'timeline' is one of the great resources the Retractiones offers: we actually know in what order Augustine wrote most of his works, which is not the case with many patristic sources) and commenting on his thoughts at the time, his perceptions of his successfulnes with each work, the correction of some points, etc.

For example, Augustine was possessed of a strong desire to write a 'literal commentary' on the opening chapters of the book of Genesis, and some of his earliest writing makes an attempt at this task. But we discover in the Retractiones that Augustine was extremely unsatisfied with the result: what he had written had served a purpose, but not fulfilled his goal. So he set about it a second time, addressed the issue here and there in other texts, and finally took up the task again full force and produced his literal commentary (the De Genesi ad litteram) - which still didn't wholly satisfy Augustine, but which was, in the words of the Retractiones, 'the best I could do'.

It is this kind of thought-process tracing through the course of Augustine's works that is explained in his Retractiones, and not so much a denial of previously-stated beliefs as one would imagine from the English title. Though it is also a forum in which Augustine can demonstrate the evolution of his own understanding, sometimes saying things akin to 'I was young when I wrote that, and my comprehension was not yet fully developed, so I spoke of it more clearly in this later work', etc.

INXC, Matthew

[Prof Richard McBride]

Matthew's critique on Blessed Augustine's own "critique" (Retractions) of himself was very nicely done.

And also John's comments, added to Matthew's, have helped center the position held by Augustine; Orthodox often seem uncertain of just how to react to him, and this clarifies the matter.

Thanks to both of you for your illuminating thoughts.

[M.C. Steenberg]

As a continuation on the above, the introduction to the resources on St Augustine on the Pachomius Project website includes a helpful summary of the controversy surrounding Augustine in the Orthodox Chuch:


"From the Orthodox point of view, St. Augustine's legacy is controversial. In the West, it would be impossible to overestimate the impact of his writings, starting in his own lifetime, and by the VI Century he was regarded as one of the greatest Latin Fathers, revered by Western saints whose Orthodoxy has never been questioned in the East. On the other hand, nearly all of those ideas which are most distinctively Augustinian -- in particular his views on the Trinity, on original sin, and on predestination -- have subsequently been rejected by the Orthodox Church, and are among the distinguishing points between Eastern and Western Christianity. Thus some Orthodox consider him not a saint, but an heresiarch.

"This view, however, is probably the minority one; it is hard to reconcile with the esteem in which Augustine was held by pre-Schism saints. More often, St. Augustine's errors are cited as the foremost example of the fallibility of the Fathers: saints are human and make mistakes. Augustine was himself aware of this, and at the end of his life was working on a revised version of his works, rejecting some entirely and modifying others in accordance with his more mature later views. Had he lived longer, possibly he would have removed many of the more dubious sections of his writings."

(Read the whole text here (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Xaustin-hip.html))

There is also an excellent article on the subject, which is pronouncedly pro-Augustine, on the OrthodoxInfo.com website:

The Blessed (Saint) Augustine of Hippo - His Place in the Orthodox Church: A Corrective (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/bless_aug.htm)

INXC, Matthew

[Theron Mathis]

Matthew's post about the article on Augustine is probably excerpted from an excellent book by Seraphim Rose titled, "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church". It is an excellent book that is short but well written. Regardless of his conclusions about Augustine the book is rich with the Orthodox position on free-will and grace. There are many excerpts from other Fathers on their view of Augustine (eg St. Mark of Ephesus). He does a great job holding up Augustine as a model of Orthodox piety, but pointing out the excesses of his theology. One of the most beneficial discussions in the book is his comparision between the thought of Augustine and that of John Cassian. It is excellent.

God Bless,

Theron Mark

[M.C. Steenberg]

Yes, Theron, the article on Orthodoxinfo.com (link in my above post) is indeed excerpted from a collection of letters by Fr Seraphim Rose on Augustine, and also includes at its end a few selections from the writings of St Photios the Great. Much good material there.

It is interesting to see Seraphim Rose so strongly in support of the embrace of Augustine, given that quite often anti-Augustine polemic comes from the extreme traditionalists, of whose group many people consider Fr Seraphim to have been.

INXC, Matthew

[John Curtis Dunn]

It is interesting to see Seraphim Rose so strongly in support of the embrace of Augustine, given that quite often anti-Augustine polemic comes from the extreme traditionalists, of whose group many people consider Fr Seraphim to have been.


I would recommend the use of the adjective *narrow* over that of *extreme* when we define those Orthodox Christians whose ecclessiologies would exclude Augustine from having a place in the handing down/on the Orthodox faith.[Paradosis=Tradition]. It seems IMO to express the true intent of their ecclessiological paradign. The use of extreme communicates excess, which I believe describes an expansion of the boarders of Orthodox tradition...while the use of narrow is descriptive of the constricting parameters which would exclude St Augustine from within the sphere of being an Orthodox Father of our Faith.

Just a suggestion.

John Curtis

[M.C. Steenberg]

John, your point is well taken concerning terminology in this context (see 'extreme' vs 'narrow', above). While I do not personally see 'extreme' as expansive in any general sense (i.e., something can be 'extremely small' as much as it can be 'extremely big', or 'extremely narrow' as 'extremely wide', etc), I do understand the point you are making. It becomes difficult properly to label (if only for identification and not for characterisation) different groups that arise within Orthodox thought when there is no schism which naturally forms 'camps' .... though sadly there is much schism in the modern day.

INXC, Matthew

[John Curtis Dunn]

Matthew your Counter-point is noted and assimilated. While I traversed through the landscape of Presbyterianism on my unforeseen journey towards Orthodoxy we used the word >>Fringe<< to identify the variant 'camps' within the sphere of Calvinistic Presbyterianism. The idea being these groups operated within a sphere of Calvinism which was not within the mainstream. I doubt applying these same terms to Orthodoxy would clarify with any more absolutism than using them did among my 'camp' of Calvinism. It seems using such terms among us is a kind of verbal nod intended to suggest for both the speaker [writer] and the hearer [reader] a common knowledge “if you know what I mean?”

Perhaps then, my reaction was itself a bit extreme. The use of the adjective 'extreme' with the noun 'Traditionalist' just seemed to suggest [in my mind, IMM] a negative direction away from center, which it may so be, [a topic for other forums], and as you have intimated my choice of narrow [ 'extremely narrow'] may also fail.

Having acknowledged this seemingly unavoidable failure of terms, I will yet post another suggestion: 'Ultra'. This later term can be used as a prefix giving the noun a proper inflective form? It will still suggest the presence of extreme or beyond the normal and thus an excessive emphasis on one or more topics used by that 'camp' to disassociate itself from others to whom they would share a more common unity if not for those topics.

I am not doubtful that the tent stakes [to parse from an Old Testament analogy] are wide enough to incorporate even the extreme traditionalist. Returning to the fringe analogy: many ideas and practices may have begun within the fringe, but some being matured may eventually have a place within the whole cloth of Orthodoxy. Thus the scene within the Tapestry of Orthodoxy is ever new while always remains the same.

Sincerely
John Curtis

PS, the etymological roots of extreme are "to be on the outside".

[M.C. Steenberg]

Thank you for these additionaly thoughts, John. The issue of proper terminology in this regard is indeed slippery business due to the sensitive nature of the whole situation. In some very real sense, even the title &#39;traditionalist&#39;, which has come to be regarded as almost negative from a certain perspective &#40;e.g., when applied to groups that categorically deny the value of any and all &#39;modern&#39; or contemporary praxis&#41;, is in fact horribly inaccurate at its core, for all proper Orthodoxy is &#39;traditionalist&#39; -- it is part of what makes it Orthodox.

Names do carry a lot of meaning. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Joel D. Kalvesmaki]

Regarding the Retractions

The Retractions are in-print in the Fathers of the Church translation &#40;CUA Press&#41;. Information about ordering can be found at their website: Click here (http://cuapress.cua.edu)

I hope this is not taken to be self-gratuitous, since I work for CUA Press, but I thought it would be of help to people.

jk
Joel Kalvesmaki

[M.C. Steenberg]

Joel, I am happy to here that CUA is keeping this work in print: hopefully many a home library will be able to add it to the shelves.

INXC, Matthew

[Joseph Bell]

It is my understanding that Augustine was made a saint by the Church before the split between East and West. Wouldn't this settle the technical question of his status within the Orthodox Church? I have read only one work by him-The Confessions of Augustine. His combination of humility and zeal for the Church are compelling.

Origen, on the other hand, would seem a good example of a person whose body of work precluded him from both sainthood and Orthodoxy.

Yours in Christ,
Joseph Bell

[Chad Duskin]

As I have gone back and read over this thread a question kept popping into my head: Why was Augustine&#39;s work so influencial on the Western church? The only answer I could think of was that he wrote in Latin and therefore had a wider audience. I have noticed in studying church history that the Latin authors represented a small body of theological knowledge in the church, but formed the larger part of the foundation for Western Christianity. It makes me wonder what I am doing as an English speaker in formulating my Orthodox viewpoints. My reading is limited to what has been translated into English and my understanding is that what is available to me is only the tip of the iceberg. I do not want to committ the same errors as those in the past in regards to creating an English speaking Orthodox tradition based mostly on what is available to me because it is familiar. It has recommitted me to the belief that I must DO what the church teaches me to do as it has been handed down from the Apostles and the Fathers and that from &#34;doing&#34; I will &#34;become&#34;. I think questions such as those surrounding Augustine, Origen and others will become clearer as I strive to live as the Church has prescribed to heal my sickened soul.

[Justin]

It&#39;s also perhaps worthy of note that one of the best theologians of the last century, Father Georges Florovsky, also seemed &#34;pro-Augustine&#34; &#40;if you will&#41;

[Owen Jones]

I think one overlooked aspect of Augustine by Orthodox and RC&#39;s alike is that he consistently preached the doctrine of deification which is central to Orthodox faith and practice, and which is a doctrine that has, sadly, fallen away in the West -- the cause of many heretical sub-groups of Christianity as well as ideologies that purport to produce perfection through some gnostic idea.

[Bob Nicholas]

Hi to all! This is my first post.

It would seem prudent to remember which doctrines were definatively held during his time and which were not before deciding whether or not he was a personal heretic or more of an explorer. Bold thinkers assume risks. Just a couple of points here. Please feel free to correct any mistakes. Just trying to fill a gap I see in this conversation:

1) Though he is considered by many to have been semi-Arian, he wrote before the great Arian controversy.

2) If I'm not mistaken, he remained a Bishop in the Church. That says something about him, his patriarch, and his flock.

3) He, apparently, was not a deified man. That may explain some of his views and why some may not consider him to a Saint.

4) A Bishop teaching (St.) Augustine's errors today would, I would think, get bounced out on his butt. Arius was punched in the mouth by a fellow bishop and condemned, but Augustine was/is considered a Saint. What does that say?

Comments?
Bob

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Bob Nicholas,

Welcome to the discussions. I hope you'll enjoy becoming involved in these conversations; and I certainly have enjoyed your first post.

Your post on Augustine was interesting. I especially enjoyed your comment, 'Bold thinkers assume risks', which is a sentiment that has been expressed in another thread during the course of a discussion on Origen.

Taking your four points one-by-one, you wrote:


1) Though he is considered by many to have been semi-Arian, he wrote before the great Arian controversy.

Augustine's life (354-430) actually overlapped part of the Arian controversy (which began in 318 with Arius, but reached its heyday in 360-380), and most of his adult life was lived after its ecclesiastical conclusion (though certainly the problem of Arianism went on for centuries). But the specific dating aside, I think it is important to remember that the lack of a clear definition of a heresy does not keep its tenets from being heretical. Heresies tend to be defined only in response to their most vocal supporters; but often these supporters come quite late in the actual development and proclamation of the specific heretical belief. We can say, for example, that there were a great number of 'Nestorians' before Nestorius: the heresy only took on his name at that later date. But whether or not there is any specific title for a given heresy, or if it has or has not been ecclesiastically defined, its proclamation is still the proclamation of heresy. And whether one proclaims heretical ideas knowingly or unknowingly, false doctrines of God are still false. We might say that there is understandable heresy that comes from a person not knowing the truth, rather than deliberately subverting it -- such is actually quite common in the earliest Christian writers, especially on topics which the Councils had not yet clarified. But such heresy is still heresy.


2) If I'm not mistaken, he remained a Bishop in the Church. That says something about him, his patriarch, and his flock.

This is certainly correct. It is also noteworthy that the Church never condemned Augustine in toto, even while it condemned many of his teachings. Augustine is excellent proof that men can be in many ways holy, without being perfectly holy.


3) He, apparently, was not a deified man. That may explain some of his views and why some may not consider him to a Saint.
Perhaps we might think of him as 'partially' deified. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif The Fathers do not think of deification as a all-or-nothing process: one is gradually deified, and may (or may not) attain to the highest stages of deification in this life. Blessed Augustine seems clearly to have been 'deified' in many regards -- much of what he wrote is pure, resplendent Orthodox theology that cannot come to a man without divine union. But much is not. Augustine was somewhere along that pathway of holiness that leads to the Kingdom.

4) A Bishop teaching (St.) Augustine's errors today would, I would think, get bounced out on his butt. Arius was punched in the mouth by a fellow bishop and condemned, but Augustine was/is considered a Saint. What does that say?
Again, I think much is the result of the fact that Augustine taught so much (the scope of his writings is truly remarkable); and amongst this vast collection are a great deal of true, orthodox doctrines, as well as a good number of false, heretical doctrines. A present-day bishop teaching the latter probably would (and should) be duly chastised and corrected by his brother bishops. But I imagine there is not a bishop in the world who does not 'teach Augustine' in the sense of proclaiming genuine Christian truths in which Augustine had a large hand in clarifying for Orthodox dogmatics.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

Is there a source on the web where I can find a concise and clear exposition of the True Orthodox Faith? &#40;It&#39;s essential doctrines that would illustrate it&#39;s differences with Roman Catholicism.&#41; I am aware of some differences but they do not seem, to me, to be very big. Thanks, Rick

[Justin]

There is no &#34;Authoritative Catechism&#34; in the Orthodox Church such as there is in Catholicism, though there are certainly documents that come close to giving a good overview of Orthodox belief. &#40;e.g., An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-28.htm#TopOfPage) by John of Damascus&#41;. For the most part though, emphasis in Orthodoxy is on experiencing the Church, not reading a book about the Church. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Regarding the differences, I would have to respectfully disagree; I think there are very big differences. I became Orthodox because I affirmed &#40;I pray by direction of the Holy Spirit&#41; that they had maintained the apostolic faith, and there seemed to me to be clear differences, some &#40;though not all&#41; of which are listed at this site (http://www.geocities.com/stainlesskings888/latinorthodoxdifferences.html).

Justin http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Richard Domina]

Thank you, Justin. I will read both of your recommendations. Rick

[Bob Nicholas]

Dear Matthew Steenburg,

You are kind &#40;the British meaning http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif &#41;. Thank you for both your welcome and well informed reply.

Cheers!
Bob

[Bob Nicholas]

Dear Matthew Steenberg,

I apologise for the typo in your name. Must be that germanic blood I inherited! Or is it the bier ? http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Sorry!

Bob

[Mark W. Flory]

The most common charge against St. Augustine &#40;yes, I did say SAINT Augustine&#41; is that his doctrine of grace disallowed free will. Hence, Orthodox writers have accused St. Augustine of lacking a doctrine of deification. However, an interesting perspective on this dispute is provided by an article by Augustine Casiday in an issue of Sobornost &#40;23:2&#41; from last year titled &#34;St. Augustine on deification: his homily on Psalm 81.&#34; The article stoutly defends St. Augustine, and shows &#40;I think persuasively&#41; that he did advocate deification &#40;i.e., a synergetic relationship between human struggle and divine grace&#41;.

[M.C. Steenberg]

As a brief aside on this current discussion: it is becoming ever more widely appreciated that the doctrine of deification is indeed found rather consistently throughout the writings of Blessed Augustine, despite the fact that for quite a long time the opposite has been proclaimed &#40;oftentimes, simply assumed&#41;. Yet the theme is certainly there in Augustine&#39;s writings; and most scholars who focus their energies &#40;and writings&#41; on his doctrine are quick to point this out.

The principal question in this regard has moved from whether Augustine conceived of a doctrine of deification, to how that doctrine influenced his larger thought. In this regard, there is much still to be pondered in his writings.

INXC, Matthew

[Kempis]

What did Blessed Augustine teach? Did he teach the TULIP? I find a lot of support in Holy Scriptures for this belief, but know Holy Tradition denys it...or does it?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Mr Kempis wrote


What did Blessed Augustine teach? Did he teach the TULIP? I find a lot of support in Holy Scriptures for this belief, but know Holy Tradition denys it...or does it?

Pardon? 'TULIP'?

INXC, Matthew

[Chris Moore]

TULIP is an acronym for the main five tenets of Calvinism being:

Total Depravity &#40;sin infects all of a person&#39;s being&#41;
Unconditional Election &#40;God elects from eternity&#41;
Limited Atonement &#40;Jesus died to atone only for the sins of the elect&#41;
Irresistable Grace &#40;The call of the Spirit cannot ultimately be resisted&#41;
Perseverance of the saints &#40;all who are called of God will persevere to the end and not fall away&#41;.

Augustine&#39;s teaching on Original Sin is often cited as support for Calvinism as it highlights the need for God&#39;s regenetative action in salvation. In other words, God&#39;s activity in salvation precedes and not follows our decision to turn to God.

[John Wilson]

TULIP is an acronym for the basic statements of Calvanism

John

[Herman Blaydoe]

St. Augustine would probably be horrified to see what his ideas were turned into by Luther and his spiritual descendent Calvin. TULIP is an acrostic for the five points of Calvinistic theology.

Total Hereditary Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

[Trudy Ellmore]

TULIP is an acronym for the five points of Calvin&#39;s doctrine on predestination. This was the result of a debate in the early 1600s at the Snyod of Dort in Holland &#40;thus the &#34;tulip&#34; theme&#41;.

As to whether St. Augustine taught this, I do not know.

In Christ, Trudy

[Kempis]

Sorry, I forget that others may not have a protestant background as I did...before Orthodoxy.
____________________________________________
&#34;T.U.L.I.P.&#34; is an acronym for the five points of the doctrine of salvation which was the result of the Synod of Dordt in the 1618. The reason for this synod
was to address the 5 points of doctrine which the Arminian Remonstrants presented to the
Reformed Churches of Europe.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3562/tulip.html

[John Vrablic]

I believe TULIP means

Total Depravity
Uncondintional ...
Limited Atonement
Preservation of the elect or Predestination

The scriptures undeniably speak about predestination and the Semi-Pelagian contriversy was the heresy in which the Catholic church refined its teaching at least in the West on predestination and free will.

Augustine, Hilary of Arles, Prosper of Aquatine, and Fulgentius and a host of others as well as the Council of Orange basically taught

1. Those who will be saved are predestined by God without merit or cause by man but only by Gods mercy

2. That God in mercy elects and justifies his elect and in justice condemns those who reject Gods grace in Christ

3. That God does NOT predestine anyone to hell, and that they go to hell of THEIR OWN choosing and free will.

4. That Faith is a gift from God given so that those who are predestined can believe the gospel, and those who are saved are not saved BECAUSE they belive but SO they can believe

5. That man before regenartion is depraved and born in sin, and has inherited sin from Adam.

6. That man before regeneration has NO capacity to chose the perform Gods good will in order to merit salvation for justification or regeneration.

7. That Christ has atoned for ALL the sins of mankind even those who go to hell will go to hell with their sins atoned for. They denied that God predestines anyone to hell

8. That those whom God has predestined WILL preservere...&#34;no one can snatch out of my hands what the Father has given me&#34;

So the scriptures and the church predominantly in the West taught the T or total depravity understood as man befoer regeneration cannot chose to follwo God and belive in Christ apart from Grace, and that they tuaght that a limited atonement was heretical, and the church and scriptures also teach that man CAN lose his salvation &#40;Dame, Saul, Judas&#41; and as such he may have been a beleiver but NOT Gods elect.

Again this is dealt with in the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagine controversies.

I woudl be interested in the orthodox understanding of predestination. The scripotures clearly tecah that there is a predestination.

John

[Warren Bensinger]

Kempis:
If you do a surch for &#34;Calvin and TULIP&#34; you will find the meaning.
T= Total depravity
U= Unconditional election. &#40;God&#39;s choise only&#41;
L= Limited atonement. &#40;not for the world&#41;
I= Irresistible grace. &#40;Can&#39;t get out of it&#41;
P= Perseverence of the saints. &#40;eternal security&#41;

I&#39;m pretty sure Calvin got the idea for some if not all of these things from Augistine but others could tell about that.
This was my cry for 50 years untill I found Orthodoxy and discovered the truth. The last thing to give up was the hardest, that being eternal secruity. St. Neilos helped me with that one and I haven&#39;t looked back.
I used to say as you did that scripture supports it. I memorized all of the verses to prove &#34;my&#34; point. What I had to learn was scripture is used by every person in the world that calls the God of the bible there higher power. I would talk to anti Calvinist and they would use the same verses to prove there point that works or tongues or baptizim was or wasen&#39;t right or what ever. Some of the churchs would say guys couldn&#39;t have long hair girls had to dress in long skirts etc. but still say they weren&#39;t under the law but under grace. Hummmm???
I finaly read Jn 16:13 and realized that someone got it right the first time and told others following them. I better read what they have to say and follow that.
Sorry for the long post, but the sight of the &#34;flower&#34; got me going.
Now I know I&#39;m still a sinner totaly dependant on God for my salvation, and I&#39;m trying to do Eph. 2:10.
Learning to Love.
warren
t.s.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear All,

The systematization of the TULIP resulted from controversy with the &#34;liberal&#34; Calvinist Armenius, who taught that justification was synergistic, and that grace was avoidable. It seemed to the Calvinists to place limits on God.

Also to be noted is that Calvin indeed considered himself a spiritual child of Luther, but Luther, who knew that grace was resistable, would have disowned him. FWIW, Melanchthon, who began to distance himself from Luther over the Augustinian double predestination issue &#40;found in Luther only in his Bondage of the Will&#41;, tried to disuade Calvin from it, but alas, to no avail. The Council of Orange had &#34;adjusted&#34; that false teaching of Augustine&#39;s double predestination i.e., that not only are the elect predestined to Glory but the reprobate are predestined to perdition. Of course, this is logical, for, to not to have chosen, is to have chosen against. So, here is another case where human reason tries to win out over God&#39;s.

Oh yes, and how did Luther handle this little bit of Augustinianism? While acknowledgning it he also said &#40;in the same work&#41; that it was of no practical use since it was all in God&#39;s mind as to who he&#39;d chosen &#40;anyone remember ever hearing that if one&#39;s theology isn&#39;t practical it can&#39;t be true?&#41; Thus, all anyone could know is whether or not he or she believed &#40;and one could know that, even if aware that the belief was &#34;weak and beggarly&#34;&#41; at any given moment. If so, one could consider oneself among the elect. But, since grace really is resistable and one might at any time choose for oneself over God, &#34;electtion&#34; was not something one could hang one&#39;s hat on and go one&#39;s merry way. One does best to remind oneself that one believes by acting like it, and addressing God in Christ penitently.

Richard

[Teo Kia Choong]

From what little I have read of Augustine from his works, such as City of God, he does not preach the TULIP exactly. The real problem is that Calvin did not formulate the TULIP historically. The TULIP was formulated ironically in response to the Arminians who stressed in their Five Remonstrances the free will of man and thus in the process downplayed the role of God&#39;s sovereignty, and at the local Synod of Dort among the Protestant churches, they came together and decided that Arminianism was a heresy using the TULIP as a guideline. Again, that does not mean the TULIP is everything in Calvinism, because it is not. Calvinism, or at least the practice of Christian faith as advocated by Calvin, did involve more than the TULIP such as the Institutes of Calvin which he used as guidelines formulated from the Bible on how best a church is to be run, and which indirectly or directly influenced the church government of the Presbyterians and smaller parish churches like the Bible Presbyterians, which uses the session of elders to govern a church.

[Teo Kia Choong]

I think that reading Augustine and his works has to take into consideration that he has written 100 over treatises, including his sermons and short treatises, some of which are lost and only known of through his remaining works via sporadic mentions of them. On top of that, he himself was not actually consistently trying to state forth any theology of &#34;double predestination&#34; throughout his whole career as a Christian bishop, although he did believe in the redemption of the elect through God&#39;s sovereign grace, and his final work &#34;Retractiones&#34; appear to be his final attempt to sort out his theological errors or faults. No one can ever claim to know Augustine like a good friend at all, not only because we did not live as contemporaries, but mainly because no one can ever say that he has read all of Augustine&#39;s works&#40;to indirectly echo what Isidore of Seville, the 6th century historian, said of Augustine&#39;s prolific status&#41;. &#40;I actually had friends who tried to suggest that Augustine believed in this or that--in short his &#34;theology&#34;--just based on the extrapolations from one work, or based on what he received from secondary readings of Augustine, which are actually as we know, unfair and biased.&#41;

The thing we need to know about the Reformers was that they did not really agree among themselves in certain aspects, although they believed in the basic tenets of sola fide, sola scriptura and sola gratia. A lot of people summarize the Protestant view of justification as simply justification by faith alone, which is an inaccurate summation, because the whole Protestant tradition hinges more on &#39;justification by faith alone through grace&#39;. That aside, as another qualifying statement, that does not however mean that all Protestants or evangelicals believe in TULIP because TULIP is very much misrepresented by itself outside of the context of what Calvin taught in full.

[Marty Zyph]

&#34;Suppress prostitution, and capricious lusts will overthrow society.&#34; - St. Augustine of Hippo &#40;354-430&#41;

Forgive me…

Did St. Augustine in fact say this and if so…could someone help me with the proper orthodox perspective?

marty

[Justin]

When I googled for it, I could only find quotes from modern books, and couldn't find an exact address for the quote. What I did find after a short search was some stuff that seemed to go along with the quote you gave (e.g., City of God, 2, 20), and some stuff that seemed to go against it (e.g., Against Lying, 20). If Augustine did indeed say what is attributed to him, then I would assume that he meant it in a "necessary evil" type of way, just as Christians owned slaves and also did other morally incorrect things, not as something "ok" but simply as a fact of life. This is just speculation, but perhaps Augustine wasn't saying that prostitution was morally good per se, but was only saying that it served a purpose and prevented greater evils. Perhaps he was trying to look at all the sides to the issues. Is this an example of a bad utilitarian, or ends-justify-the-means, belief? I don't know.

What I do know is that, even if it was indeed Augustine's quote, the concept of looking past immorality was hardly a new one. St. Paul, for instance, didn't command Christians to set slaves free, and even told slaves to be faithful to their masters and sent one back to his master. There are also other Scriptural examples or morals that we wouldn't find acceptable today. For example, according to the mosaic law, if a man had sex with a young virgin who was not betrothed, then the man was to pay the girl's family and marry her (Deut. 22:28-29). The idea that a man could essentially force himself on a girl and then (seemingly) be rewarded with marrying her might seem strange, but as much as it might have been a bad situation, it was better than the alternatives (fwiw, according to Eve Levin, the Russian canonical law held to the same principle in some cases, so this isn't just a thing that happened thousands of years ago, as much as it might be hard for us to accept).

In any event, I don't think that Bl. Augustine would have been supporting prostitution as though he was saying "Hey, it's fine, go ahead and do it, no big deal." Whatever the quote you gave (if it's legit) might mean, Augustine also said things like:


"For husbands and wives love one another, and parents and children, and all other human relationships that bind men together: to say nothing of the blame-worthy and damnable love which is mutually felt by adulterers and adulteresses, by fornicators and prostitutes, and all others who are knit together by no human relationship, but by the mischievous depravity of human life." - Bl. Augustine, Tractate 65 on John

[Marty Zyph]

Thank you for the response Justin. I do not have the context of this quote. I read it on another board, where an atheist titled his post “Prostitution saves society”

Being interested in orthodoxy, I thought to ask…

I’ve heard the term “Necessary evil” before, or “the lesser of two evils” in speaking about divorce, but can more be said about the Churches understanding of necessary evil?

[Marty Zyph]

I am sorry, a thought occurred to me that I should use the term “Church’s understanding” rather than “Churches understanding”

[Justin]

Well, as far as I understand it, it's basically a way of saying that Christians should strive for excellence ("be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect"), but that God, and the Church, are aware that in a fallen world sometimes fallen people just can't be at a perfectly moral level. That is to say, we live in a fallen world, and sometimes there are only less-than-desirable choices. I think many people feel this way during elections!

Personally, I have found the words of St. Gregory the Theologian to be very helpful in my life...


...It is better both to attain the good and to keep the purification. But if it be impossible to do both it is surely better to be a little stained with your public affairs than to fall altogether short of grace; just as I think it better to undergo a slight punishment from father or master than to be put out of doors; and to be a little beamed upon than to be left in total darkness. And it is the part of wise men to choose, as in good things the greater and more perfect, so in evils the lesser and lighter. Wherefore do not overmuch dread the purification. For our success is always judged by comparison with our place in life by our just and merciful Judge; and often one who is in public life and has had small success has had a greater reward than one who in the enjoyment of liberty has not completely succeeded; as I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean. To give you a proof of what I have said: Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself. - Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you for the beautiful quote from St Gregory, Justin. What a wise and gentle man St Gregory must have been! It makes me think that meekness/tolerance can be misused to justify sin &#40;&#34;Prostitution saves society&#34;&#41;, but when it is applied to understanding human nature, it can be really healing.

In Christ
Byron

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Marty Zyph,

since you have the blessed zeal to seek the truth of Orthodox Church, let me point out that Augustine of Hippo is not an Orthodox Saint. He is a saint of the Vatican Catholic Church.

In his book &#34;Regarding the providence of God&#34; &#40;2.12&#41; he wrote: &#34;Banish harlots ... and you shall end up with a society in chaos, as a result of unsatisfied lust&#34;.

This is NOT the Orthodox point of view.

But this is not even Augustine&#39;s point of view!

This verse isolated from Augustine&#39;s work distorts the meaning of his teaching. Augustine&#39;s point of view is that the prostitution originates from the people who have hearts burning from unsatisfied lust. Even if the women of prostitution were to be banished altogether then the unsatisfied lust would remain in men. Then the society would end up in chaos, because the men seeking for satisfaction would have no way to accomplish their quest. This is not an alibi for accepting prostitution as a lesser evil, but it is the conclusion that men must fight their unsatisfied lust, instead of fighting the women that serve prostitution as means for men&#39;s satisfaction. One should fight the cause of evil and not its means, because evil is capable to find another way to perform its act.

[Tim Grass]

Augustine of Hippo is not an Orthodox Saint. He is a saint of the Vatican Catholic Church.

This is untrue. Augustine is a saint commemorated on Orthodox calendars all over the world.

--tim

[Patrick Walsh]

Saint Photios the Great supported the validity of the glorification of Saint Augustine. So Saint Augustine is a Saint of the Orthodox Church. However, there is a problem with his glorification. The Carolingian scholars presented his teachings in such a way that they did not conflict with the Orthodox view. Augustine&#39;s errors on the procession of the Holy Spirit, original sin, predestination and soon were not known to the Orthodox Church until his works were properly translated long after the Great Schism, in the thirteenth century.

However, he has been glorified, and it is unprecedented to &#34;de-glorify&#34; someone. It is safer to regard him as a Saint and to avoid his teachings.

But we need to recall that even Augustine admitted his writings were not ready for the light of day and needed much correction, but he was obliged to publish them anyway due to external pressures from his bishop and sponsors. To put it simply, Augustine was a Christian philosopher, and his brilliance in philosophy has been seldom equalled.

However, Augustine was no theologian--he speculated on the truth, not sought it out in the Consensus Patrum. This makes sense to me anyway, since it is well known that the Greek language was something of a problem to him. No matter how hard he tried to learn it, Greek eluded him. So he could not search the Fathers, aside from the few who wrote in Latin.

On the original question...

Yes, St. Augustine wrote many such things. He felt that morality could not be legislated from the throne, and society would be even worse if the attempt was made. Without prostitutes absorbing some of the evil in the world, the evil would resort to more violent expressions against women. He did not justify prostitution at all, but expressed that from a practical point of view it was better to leave them well enough alone rather than shut them down. Without them, he felt, those engaged in the holy life would be targets for those bent on evil.

It is a faulty argument, I am not agreeing with Augustine, but just trying to present his thoughts more clearly as best as I understand them.

Patrick

[Justin]

Thank you for clearing up the quote, Leandros. But please, rethink whether Augustine is not a saint. It is one of the greatest bits of irony in 20th century Orthodox scholarship that one of the most vocal defenders of the anti-Augustine polemic had a large part in publishing St. Photius&#39; On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, in which St. Phoatius defended Blessed Augustine, and said that even if Augustine had taught the heretical filioque, that he should still be forgiven and considered a Father! &#40;70-72&#41; People make mistakes, even Augustine, Michael Azkoul, and John Romanides. Fwiw, a thread of interest &#40;I am Asteriktos in that discussion&#41;...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=4585.0

[M.C. Steenberg]

It is interesting to note that one of the most vocal recent defenders of Augustine&#39;s place on the calendar of the Church, and his sanctity within those ranks, was the late Fr Seraphim Rose.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Augustine&#39;s place in the Church was the subject of an interesting conversation here back in 2002. I&#39;ve moved the most recent posts on the matter into the same thread, and you&#39;ll find the older posts now in the present thread, in the Archive through 06 October 2005 sub-thread (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4229/24961.html?1128608788).

A few posts there in particular are of interest and relevant to the most recent discussion on Augustine in general &#40;though not the more specific question of the quotation regarding harlotry&#41;: A general &#39;introduction to the questions&#39; by John Curtis Dunn (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4229&post=264#POST264); a comment by me on the problems with being sweeping about Augustine and his teachings (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4229&post=265#POST265); a post in which I quoted a good summary statement on the questions involved (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4229&post=276#POST276), with a link to a full article on another web site; a post raising a series of questions of specific doctrines (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4229&post=1355#POST1355) was posted by Bob Nichols, to which I replied (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4229&post=1358#POST1358), as did Mark Flory (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4229&post=1476#POST1476).

It is very unfair to label Augustine &#39;not an Orthodox Saint [...] He is a saint of the Vatican Catholic Church&#39;. As Mr Grass, Patrick and Justin have since pointed out, Augustine has a place on the calendar as a feast of the Orthodox Church and is commemorated thereon. It is one of the strange phenomena of the modern day that so many Orthodox seem keen to discredit and discount Augustine, despite the fact that he was immensely respected, revered and remembered amongst the actual patristic heritage of the Church. It seems to me again to be part-and-parcel of the desire to make things &#39;black and white&#39;, falsely one way or the other, based in large part on perceptions of ancient persons read through much later distortions of their teaching or influence.

Much of the particular issues here have been discussed earlier, in the posts I&#39;ve linked and elsewhere in the community &#40;which can be easily searched (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/search.cgi)&#41;.

INXC, Matthew

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear friends,

I write the following lines in the spirit of love and brotherhood. I do not want to scandalize the faith of anyone.

At a past time, 18th-20th centuries, when the majority of Church bishops, theologians, and theological seminars &#40;mainly the Greek & the Russian&#41; were accepting almost all of Augustine&#39;s false doctrines as genuine Orthodox teachings, it seemed to them that his canonization was a proper think to do, although the Orthodox Church for 1500 years was abstaining from doing it. So, they canonized him, at the time, because they found no false in his doctrines. And there are many Orthodox clerics teaching, “ex cathedra”, Augustine’s false teachings as Orthodox, even as I write these words.

For centuries it was a common practise to call Augustine of Hippo as &#34;blessed&#34; Augustine; this was a constant practise. But to be blessed is one thing and to be saint is another.

Nobody is saying that Augustine&#39;s work should be thrown to fire; neither does anyone suggest rejecting him. He was indeed a pious and honest hierarch, a wise man whose work is part of the heritage of Church. Even the work of Origen, or of Evagrius of Pontus, who were condemned by Ecumenical Synods, are part of the Church&#39;s heritage and they are used and put in practise by the monks in monasteries in active spiritual warfare. The holistic position that a person holds, either all truth, or all false is not Orthodox. Nobody is accusing Augustine for his failures. I think that everybody understands that he had a burning faith in his heart with a genuine love for Christ and for his fellow man and that he was an active member and teacher of the Church and a charismatic bishop. I think that everyone accepts that Augustine was indeed blessed.

The issue is not the perfection of his work or his life, but his sainthood. Only God knows the heart of man. The saints are already glorified by God, and they arrive at the perfection of sanctification, before their death. God has the pleasure to make known to the Church of these man and women. Thus, we accept God&#39;s revelation and we proclaim what the Spirit revealed to us in the first place. Therefore we pray to saints for their intercession, and we do not pray for their salvation.

There are four types of the revelation of Spirit: profound Orthodox teaching that comes from the Spirit, miracles in Spirit, incorruptible relics sustained by the Spirit, martyrdom in Spirit.

Thank God, we are under Orthodox authority and we are not under Vatican authority. We understand that hierarchs are not infallible and that even synods can make false decisions. Blind faith is not an Orthodox virtue.

I am afraid that the canonization of blessed Augustine does not have the catholic acceptance of the Church. You can find an article in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America web site, with the title: Saint Augustine in the Greek Orthodox Tradition (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp). In this article the main argument in favour of Augustine’s sainthood is that “he has never been erased from the list of saints”. This is an interpretation of canonization according to vatican logic: the “list” is the authority. But the “list” is not the authority. The Church life is the authority. And the Church life is not the opinions of persons, but the practise of worshiping God. In this context Augustine is presented as a person that was introduced by several church members through centuries as a saint, but who was not honoured in iconography or was not commemorated by naming a church in his name, and not having a place in worship of God, while his work and life and sainhood were known by the Church. And this status of recognised sainthood external to worship was valid for almost 1400 years!

In the same article you can find the “Dismissal Hymn chanted in the Orthodox Church on June 15, the Feast of Saint Augustine”:

“O blessed Augustine, you have been proved to be a bright vessel of the divine Spirit and revealer of the city of God; you have also righteously served the Saviour as a wise hierarch who has received God. O righteous father, pray to Christ God that he may grant to us great mercy.”

If the Catholic Orthodox Church is chanting this hymn with one voice with no asterisks and explanations and footnotes and with the Spirit affirming from the heart, then the blessed Augustine is indeed a saint of the Church revealed by God as His friend and our mediator.

This is something that can not be demonstrated in a forum, but it can be experienced in the Church &#40;or not experienced at all&#41;.

The dismissal humn is not just a song. It should be a presentation of real events and facts, wherein the Presence of God is revealed through the life of the respective saint. Augustine wrote a book with the title “the city of God”. Is this book &#40;and the other works of Augustine&#41; a revelation of the Spirit, to His friend and our mediator, as the dismissal hymn suggests?

May God bless us, all.

[Tim Grass]

Augustine wrote a book with the title “the city of God”. Is this book (and the other works of Augustine) a revelation of the Spirit, to His friend and our mediator, as the dismissal hymn suggests?

Yes.

I'm known for having a pretty gruff way of talkinga nd for being pretty direct. I'm trying really hard to hold back on that right now. These things about Augustine that have just been posted aren't right. Where have people come up with this listing of "four types of the revelation of Spirit?" Or the idea that a saint must have already reached perfection in this life? Or that there are no icons of Augustine?

There are services in his honor that were comssioned by St. john of Shanghai.

His feast is kept in the church... not just because it's on a "list", but because the "list" of our calendar is a record of our commemorations.

This whole kind of argument says that we shouldn't have lists and set categories "like the Vatican church"... but then sets out strict lists and categories: "blessed" is a different category than "saint"... there are "four ways" for the spirit to be revealed.

I'm really not trying to be "edgy" or argumentative, but this is the kind of stuff that confuses Orthodoxy. Everyone admits in the ORthodx world that Augustine made theological mistakes... but so did St. Justin, and St. Ireneus, and St. Gregory, and so many others. Sainthood isn't about theological perfection, it's about sacntity. The fact that people used Augustine's writings to support some pretty strange ideas in the West shouldn't make us jump gun and support the absolutely rediculous idea that he's a "Saint of the Vatican Church." The fact that Russian seminaries, who were influenced by Rome's books in the 19-th century, liked Augustine, also doesn't mean they're all just pawns of the Vatican.

This stuff is just wrong.... I don't mean to be rude or argumentative, but people read messages online and listen to them, and this stuff needs to be corrected. IT twists the truth with little bits of what's right...but producing something that in the end isn't.

--tim

[Patrick Walsh]

Greetings Tim Grass.

Saint Augustine has always been a bit of a problem in the Orthodox Church. His errors have been, rightly or wrongly, blamed for the Great Schism, and the falling away of Rome. Personally, I do not blame Saint Augustine for the Schism, but the Carolingian Medieval Scholastics who took his writings and interpreted them to suit their political agenda. Many of St. Augustine&#39;s errors are not apparent from his writings, but only become revealed in the fruits of his writings in the Scholastic theology that is the basis of the Roman Catholic Church.

But if you are a fan of Saint Augustine, and enjoy reading him, and are an Orthodox Christian, you need to have a thick skin about it. There is a lot of politics, not theology or ecclesiology, driving the anger against Saint Augustine. If it makes you feel any better, the Catholics regard St. Photios in the same light as many Orthodox hold St. Augustine in.

Patrick

[Tim Grass]

Hi Patrick. I don&#39;t know if I&#39;d call myself a &#34;fan&#34; of St. Augustine in any partiuclar sense... no more or less than others. I just get pretty irked when I see this kind of idea being put forward as universally the way the Orthodox world thinks. It isn&#39;t... and it&#39;s deceptive to say it is. Most of the time, I discover that it&#39;s brought up by people with a specific anti-Roman Catholic agenda and it&#39;s used as part of advancing this... doing injustice to all sides.

Thanks for your words.

--tim

[J. A. McIntyre]

Just wondering, how many on this forum have actually read St. Augustine's works?

[Tim Grass]

Just wondering, how many on this forum have actually read St. Augustine's works?
I'm not really up for a show of hands, but I've read pretty much the bulk of his works in English, and some of the more important ones in Latin.... my guess is that a lot of people here in the forum have too...... my experience has been that people here are generally pretty well read.

--tim

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I'm not really up for a show of hands, but I've read pretty much the bulk of his works in English, and some of the more important ones in Latin.... my guess is that a lot of people here in the forum have too...... my experience has been that people here are generally pretty well read.

--tim

The whole question of the place of St Augustine within the Church is also usually dealt with in a very thorough way in our Orthodox seminaries.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[J. A. McIntyre]

Mr. Grass, the question was rhetorical. It’s been my experience that most who comment on St. Augustine, haven’t read St. Augustine, that said, you have set my fears aside.

Father Raphael, how much of Orthodox seminary training is given to St. Augustine [in very, very general terms of course]? The time I spent among the Greeks gave me the impression they knew little or nothing of St. Augustine.

Peace,

JM

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father Raphael, how much of Orthodox seminary training is given to St. Augustine [in very, very general terms of course]? The time I spent among the Greeks gave me the impression they knew little or nothing of St. Augustine.

Peace,

JM

At least at the seminary I attended (St Tikhon's Seminary in South Canaan, Pa) we devoted quite a bit of time to St Augustine. In my experience most priests in Orthodoxy, even though few of us are experts, have a general understanding of him. Of course those who previous to Orthodoxy were Roman Catholic or Protestant may already know a fair deal about him.

Among the laity of course this would depend on how much they had read.

One thing for sure is that few Orthodox devote their main spiritual or even theological reading to St Augustine except for some few passages or rare sermons they may come across in collections of the Fathers. This isn't necessarily from a critical attitude however- few Orthodox have read St Hilary for example. Many of us however have read St Gregory the great (Dialogos for us) and the situation is really improving with St Ambrose of Milan- although to be honest I don't know why the change has occurred.

In general about St Augustine we say: 'He has many wonderful pastoral sermons and writings well worth reading. But his theological writings are very problematic.'

In Christ- Fr raphael

[Antonios]

FYI, yesterday (June 15) was the day which the Orthodox Church commemorates St. Augustine. May he pray for our souls before the Almighty and a happy name day to all Augustines the world over!

[J. A. McIntyre]

Ahhhha! That was going to be one of my many questions, thank you for answering it.

[Dave Ferguson]

Can I take this right back to the begginning of this thread and ask from an Orthodox perspective: where did Pelagius go wrong? I ask this because I have recently heard an attempt to explain orthodoxy which sounded like pure Pelagianism, and I am sure this cannot be correct. For example I was told that Orthodox do not hold to any kind of doctrine of original sin: surely that is not the case.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Can I take this right back to the begginning of this thread and ask from an Orthodox perspective: where did Pelagius go wrong? I ask this because I have recently heard an attempt to explain orthodoxy which sounded like pure Pelagianism, and I am sure this cannot be correct. For example I was told that Orthodox do not hold to any kind of doctrine of original sin: surely that is not the case.

Dear Mr Ferguson,

It is interesting to note that even Augustine, perhaps Pelagius' single greatest 'foe', seemed at first to consider the latter's arguments primarily a question of balance (or imbalance), rather than rank error. His fierce anti-Pelagian strain developed over time.

I would characterise Pelagius' chief deficiencies along two lines:




An externalising perception of God's grace, which tends to make it a didactic tool, or a kind of example, rather than an express, personal engagement of the divine energies.
A deficient Christology, which tends to see Christ's salvific work along the lines of a didactic revelation from God to man, rather than centring on a renewal of nature of the human-divine union of the incarnation.

Other aspects of the ascetical life taught by Pelagius, and indeed his attempts to correct what he saw as deficiencies in the framework for asceticism provided by Augustine's writings, have been long appreciated by the Orthodox world.

I shall look forward to more discussion on this, as I imagine there are more questions out there.

INXC, Matthew

[Dave Ferguson]

[PHP]I would characterise Pelagius' chief deficiencies along two lines:

An externalising perception of God's grace, which tends to make it a didactic tool, or a kind of example, rather than an express, personal engagement of the divine energies.
A deficient Christology, which tends to see Christ's salvific work along the lines of a didactic revelation from God to man, rather than centring on a renewal of nature of the human-divine union of the incarnation.
PHP]

Thankyou, that's very helpful. I can see that.

Can I raise again the issue of how Orthodoxy understands original sin or is that going too far off topic? I have heard that what Orthodox reject is any idea of transference of guilt. There is a passage somewhere in Chrysostom where he says a newly born child is baptized even though it is innocent of any sins. I gather that Augustine was at pains to insist that in this passage Chrysostom used the plural 'sins' meaning particular acts of sin rather than 'sin'. And could point to other references in Chrysostom that would suggest some kind of doctrine of original sin more akin to Augustine. As is well known Augustine uses texts, including that of scripture, like a lawyer arguing a case so he may have been unfair to Chrysostom.

What i am rambling around is the question: if there is an Orthodox doctrine of original sin how does that work? And how does it differ from the views of Augustine.

[Herman Blaydoe]

If you do a quick search on "original sin", I think you will find several threads where this is addressed at length, most recently here:

Consequences of 'original sin' Thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3713)

[Jonathan Hayward]

One other thought:

If the question is, "May the blessed Augustine be called a saint?" then there is room to say yes. If the question is, "May the blessed Augustine be called a Church Father?" then there is room to say yes.

However, if the question becomes "May we say that the sun of patrology rises and sets on Augustine's writings, so that he is the central point of reference for knowing the Fathers?" then some Orthodox get a lot more squeamish.

When I've heard other Orthodox complaining that when an Evangelical says "I've been reading the Fathers" it means "I've been reading Augustine." The concern is not that Augustine is included; the concern is that the blessed Augustine is so encompassingly included that there is no real possibility that St. John Chrysostom, or the Philokalia, or Abba Dorotheos are being read: "I've been reading the Fathers" just means, "I've been reading Augustine." As it did for me.

Christos Jonathan