What I found interesting in the lecture, was how Augustine viewed God and the analogies that Augustine used for the Trinity. Augustine believed that God has no attributes but he is those attributes. For example, one might say hat God has mercy. Augustine would say that God is mercy. "God simply is what God is," as the professor stated. I think that this is a valid point. God does not have everything good he is everything good. If God was not inherently perfect, God could not be everything good. However he is inherently perfect, therefore he is everything good.
The two analogies that Augustine uses in his book, On the Trinity, are that man has the capability of memory, intellect, and will and Father being the Lover, the Son being the beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the Love that binds them. In first analogy, man has the capabilities of memory, intellect, and will, and yet we are one person. I found this analogy to be a valid argument for the trinity. All of these functions are a result of the brain. They are all somewhat related in that they all require the brain in order to function. Yet they are different in that each has a specific purpose, just as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit all have different purposes and are still one. The second analogy, however, as mentioned in the lecture, seems to discredit the Holy Spirit. Saying that the Holy Spirit is what binds the Father and the Son does not give full credit to the power of the Holy Spirit. These two analogies were fascinating to learn about as part of the history of Augustine.
I found interesting that Augusta was really the first Calvinist. I like how the speaker attributed Augusta’s Calvinist views to his pessimistic outlook. That man has no control over his actions what so ever and that we can never become better. I recently have been in a debate with a fellow believer and Calvinist about predestination. He thinks that in a way if we accepted God’s gift of salvation for and to everyone that we would have something to boast about and it would diminish Gods sovereignty over creation. In reality though God IS the only way we can be saved and some people will harden their hearts against what God plainly reveals to them while others will accept it. This really had an impact on the Church of the time because as we learned many people had denied the faith when under persecution. People like Augustas said that those who had forsaken the faith were not true believers therefore could not come back into the Church. The reason being that if God truly predestined someone nothing could separate them being one of Gods children, thus people who rejected the faith could not have been saved in the first place. This change from God gives us freewill to God makes us believe seems to start out with subtle differences. Augustus starts out with common ground that man is deprived, but he goes on to say he is so deprived that he could not even willingly accept salvation without God. Now this too many believers was and is true, God needs to in a sense help our unbelief and help us to believe. But after he helps us to believe by giving us salvation does he finish it off by setting us of on our path to “conversion,” or do we have to make the choice? The difference come when he says the belief cannot be of ourselves but God gives us a gift and makes us accept it. This subtle difference between God making us take the gift and God allowing us to choose the gift must have confused many people during the time. The thought process would have been that without God and his gift none could come to salvation but the fine line between how that salvation was given or forced upon each person must have confused many orthodox Christians in Rome and Constantinople.
Ambrose was known to be a very good speaker, it was interesting that he was chosen to be the next bishop even though that he was not ordained to be a priest. But when Augustine heard the content, he liked how Ambrose interpreted the dialogue and style. One thing that Augustine liked was the allegorical interpretation of the gospel. Because of his good speaking Augustine began to take the gospel seriously. I find this fascinating that Ambrose had so much “sway” with his words. It sort of reminds me of Hitler, Hitler was a fantastic speaker and he held much sway with the Germans.
The Ambrocian Chant was pretty eery but other than that I thought it pretty. To me, it seemed like the exact opposite of the Byzantine Chant! I really liked going back to the first chant and comparing the two of them. The Papandrea St. Augustine Lecture: First of all I really liked the lecturer a lot more than last weeks. He made it a ton more interesting. I was really fascinated with Augustine and thought it was interesting that his mistress was never named. I found it kind of surprising that he eventually broke off his relationship with her and then was NOT surprised to hear that he took another mistress. because it seems that normally the men that we have been reading about don't care-they will break whatever rules to marry a woman. Also, I'd never heard of the Manichees before so that was really interesting to hear about that cult.
That's true! The chants do seem really different. Wait till we get to the Muslim call to prayer. You feel like your soul is being sucked out of your stomach.
Hearing the professor talk about Augustine's "City of God" was both interesting and convicting. Augustine puts forth the idea that there are two cities, the city of earth and the city of God. He says we may belong to one of the two but we cannot belong to both. I was reminded of the parable of the two masters. One cannot serve two masters, because he will always serve one over the other. We cannot be of the world and of God. We are told to be in the world, but not of it. We should not isolate ourselves from the world, because we will be no good for God's kingdom, and we should not identify ourselves with the world, because then we are not of God.
Also interesting was his discussion of love. We cannot love the things of the world perfectly, because we will always have a fear that we will lose them. As 1 John 4:18 says "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear..." So the only things that we can love perfectly are God and His salvation, because we have no fear of losing them. God will never leave us, and he will not retract His salvation no matter what we do. So we need to try to love God and the things of God above all other things, because they are the only things we can love perfectly.
On the 'City of God' note, C.S. Lewis said, "Aim at Heaven and you will get earth "Thrown in." Aim at earth and you will get neither." By having an eternal perspective, with our securities in God, we will have confidence beyond what the world can provide, but which will drive us to accomplish God's work for us. "It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this one."
One of the things that really stuck out to me during the lecture was something that the professor said towards the end. He said, "Which is stronger, purity or impurity? If purity is stronger, then you hope purity will purify the impure. If impurity is stronger, then you fear that impurity will taint the pure." I found this to be very intriguing. Which is stronger? Purity or impurity? I believe impurity to be stronger because of mankind's inherent sinful nature. Man can never be perfect or pure, the only one that can and was is, as we know, Jesus Christ. Which, of course, is why he was the only one who could die for all sin once. So this means that Augustine had it right, that impurity is stronger. I also found it interesting that the council of Nicaea was not the first council Augustine called together. In light of all of the things that the professor talked about having to do with Augustine, it seems pretty clear that Augustine was, if not completely a true Christian, then at least devoted to serving this one true God that was revealed to him at the Milvian bridge.
Oh, that's an interesting and challenging quote Nathan! I missed that in the lecture. Within the realm of fallen earth, I agree that impurity is stronger. I like your point that, if impurity were not stronger, Christ's sacrifice would not seemingly have been necessary. However, in the grand scheme of things, it's purity that will win the day. Christ was pure. In that sense, purity is the stronger of the two.
@G SP, Yes, I was, my bad. I thought I heard him mention that Augustine was at Nicaea, when in reality he was referring to Constantine while talking about Augustine.
@Ian, I completely agree, in the end purity will "win the day". Which that is pretty much the hope that we have, the hope for the day when all will be made pure and perfect.
I thought this weeks lecture was interesting although it was very lengthy, unlike the last lecture. I thought the content and the teacher were a little better in this lecture. some of the things that i thought to be interesting was how you would get engaged to a girl at 12. I found that very weird, as i am sure all of you did. it was also interesting how they would then wait till she was 16 or so to get married. i also thought the view of conversion was interesting how he said once you convert that doesn't mean you will be perfect, but it means "you will except yourself on a path". but really it is like God setting you on a path. something i thought very interesting was when he was talking about conversion he said "my heart is restless until it find its rest in you" i find this statement very eye opening almost and that we should all think and have that mindset about God.
I didn't really like ambrosian chant i thought it was really ruff, last weeks was much better and i found myself listening to the byzantine chant throughout the week.
"If you love anything of the world, than it's not a pure love, it's not a perfect love, because it's a love that has fear." For if you love something that you can lose, then you will live in fear of losing it. Or if you do not have it, then you will live in fear of not getting it. As such, in away, all sin can be derived from this fear. This thought process portrayed by Augustine, is one that I find rather intriguing, as it one that make logical sense. For example, why do people steal? According to Augustine, it is because of the fear they will never receive the item they stole. However, a question that is more complex would be, why do people murder? It could be for a number of reasons, fear for their own love life, their love ones, or their love of possessions. But with all of these possible reasons, they revolve around the love of a worldly possession. According to Augustine, one should place their love in something that they will never lose, that is in the love of God. What is even more interesting is that if it were up to us, we could even lose God because of our sinful nature. However, the reason we do not lose Him, is not because of us, but because of Him. "God holds onto us by grace." Later in his studies, Augustine came to the conclusion that, "Grace is irresistible...if God wants you He will get you, and there is nothing you can do about it." I found both of these topics interesting on the basis that they allow for a greater understanding of human nature as well as our relationship with God.
"If you love anything of the world, it's not perfect love, because it has fear." This quotation was my favorite portion of the lecture. The Professor described that faith in the world will always cause us to fear the loss of it. But faith in God is the assurance that we will never lose hope. It was really encouraging as he talked about who we but our faith in for the future. If we put our hope in the world, we will always be disappointed because sinful man can never fulfill our expectations. It is God who is perfect and holy. He, and only he, can assure us of our salvation. God has saved us and we he will never let us go. This doctrine comes from John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." When we put our faith in God, we can be assured that we are redeemed. God will never leave us or forsake us. Our destiny is secure in his hands. It is a great reminder not to "store up treasures" in this world - for a love of the world is unfulfilled - dependent on sinful people and things - and thus fearful and anxious. Yet God's "perfect love casts our fear" as John states. What a blessed assurance.
You've presented a very straightforward point! I don't know that I have much to add, but I do really like that quote too! It's an interestingly true dynamic and I like that simple way that Augustine logically plays it out. As I was reading your post I was thinking of that "perfect love casts out fear verse" too. I see you had the same thought!
Please excuse my lame, cliché pop-culture reference. It does seem to fit in a strange way. "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering."
I really enjoyed the speaker! Anyhow, onwards to the actual content...
"First you believe in something and then you learn to understand it."
I found Augustine's debate over the statement above quite interesting. At first he believed the opposite. He believed that in order to believe in something he had to understand it beforehand. As he delved further in the study of the faith, he came to understand that it really was the other way around. This direct contradiction reminded me of one of Athanasius's arguments--we studied the argument last week for Lit. in Romans and 1 Corinthians--in "On the Incarnation". The given scriptures essentially say that Man sees God's way as foolish and likewise God sees Man's way as foolish. “Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know, God was please through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:20b-21) Aside from the desire for wisdom factor, Augustine's arguments and Athanasius's arguments aren't identical. That said, they still represent the same sort of dynamic, hence the connection.
Moving on from connections between subjects, one quote from the lecture that particularly caught my attention was the following...
"Human beings are really the only animals capable of pointless destruction."
Prior to listening to this lecture, I'd never directly considered that before. Augustine makes a fascinating point! In addition to the conclusions that Augustine draws from this idea, I think the quote is a good pointer for Christians today. The statement shows that while we're the most intelligent creatures of creation, we're also the most susceptible to internal evil and corruption. Other animals only kill and destroy out of fear (e.g. self defense) or need (e.g. food), unless the given animal is perhaps rabid. Humans, on the other hand, have been witnessed to kill and destroy for the soul purpose of entertainment and sick desires. If you're not convinced, and aside from all the horrible things that happen in the real-world anyway, just look at films and video games these days. Some humans have become rabid, so to speak, for the soul reason of being rabid. There are those who love evil for evil's sake. I think Augustine simplistic incite on this subject is really quite profound!
There were many fascinating things in the lecture this week, and it was really interesting to learn how some of the basic orthodox doctrine we have today originated with Augustine. Specifically the doctrine of election seems to be first really established and emphasized by Augustine, and the arguments he used to support this doctrine are intriguing. Augustine believed that almost all sin originates from fear, and especially the fear of losing what you love. Because everything on this fallen Earth is corruptible and perishable it will all be lost at some point, and humans all live in uncertainty and fear. The falleness and weakness of the human will was another one of the things that convinced Augustine that there could not be free will, and in the lecture the professor mentioned that “Augustine realized the power of the peer pressure, mob mentality, the pressure to go along with the group, and how it overcomes the individual willpower. Humans are the only ‘animal’ capable of wanton destruction. Augustine is skeptical of human progress toward perfection; if humans cannot be trusted, the only one who can be trusted is God.” The only thing that cannot be lost is that which is eternal, and Augustine held that if we were able to choose our salvation we could also lose it, and would thus be living in a fear of that loss.
It's interesting how some of the most influential and well known Christian clergymen have come from a more "un-Christian" background. A few men particularity come to mind. The first, obviously, is Augustine, who previously had his roots in the Monicheism that championed a more contemporary form of Gnosticism in that time period, but later he was converted to Christianity (aided by the persistent nudging of his mother, Monica). After his conversion, he became a powerful and popular figurehead of Christianity among his generation and even today. Another highly influential Christian that comes to mind is none other than Paul. We all know the story of Paul. The man who first supported the persecution of Christians but later was converted to Christianity, and I think we all can fill in the blanks what he did for Christianity later in his life. Another man who may not have been the keenest Christian, but still played an important role was Constantine. Constantine came from a highly pagan upbringing then was dramatically converted to Christianity upon his alleged vision during one of his conquests in the West. Overall, these three men have very similar stories that begin with an upbringing that was usually seeded in more pagan, Gnostic, or atheistic ideologies, but through the miraculous handiwork of God, were converted to followers of Christ who went on to do significant things for His Kingdom. I think this illustrates how truly awesome our God is while simultaneously showing a bit of His cleverness. After all, by converting these three men, people realized the grandeur of God: If the Christian God could convert such Gnostic men like Augustine, or pagan men like Constantine, or men that even persecuted Christians like Paul, then that God must be a powerful God indeed. So it is not by mere coincidence that God chooses such men, but by a divine and intricate process that He uses for the purpose of His Kingdom. Although these processes are usually far beyond human comprehension, we can always trust that everything that God does will work out in a way that is best not for our worldly desires, but for mankind's spiritual needs.
I agree with the consensus: Augustine's view on the predestination/freewill is very interesting. It is very hard to support a position exclusively for either of these. For example, if one supports only freewill, what does one do with Ephesians 1:5? Likewise, if one supports only predestination, did God manually put sin into the world through the fall? It seems as though a balance between these positions is needed, and Augustine addressed the issue with this belief: Humans were originally created with freewill, but by choosing sin, lost true powers of decision making. It is thus God's plan alone propelling humanity forward, and God's will alone that selects His followers.
Through the fall, we lost direct contact with God and perfect fulfillment of the law. Adding freewill to that list is not a far jump and is very insightful. Throughout Romans 6, Paul compares humanity to a slave. All begin as slaves to sin. Augustine used this comparison to say that w cannot make our own decisions, as sin makes them for us. Paul goes on to say, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life" (Romans 6:22). According to Augustine, this means that, just as sin guided our decisions, when we come to God we are guided directly by him. Whether or not this is what Paul actually meant by this passage, I don't know, but it fits pretty well with what Augustine is saying.
Personally, I think the predestination/freewill equilibrium is elsewhere. While I think Augustine's belief that we lost mastery over ourselves in the fall is true, I don't think we are merely God's puppets. There is a difference between a slave/servant and an automaton. Even when we are slaves to God, there is action on our part. My thoughts aside, this view was unique among early church bishops, and Augustine shows the diversity of thought within orthodoxy in the quickly developing church.
I really enjoyed listening to his lecture, he was very serious at times, but he was also like "Human" and not this guy that knows everything to the point where you're like afraid to talk to him about things. He was obviously well liked by the class, which was cool for me to see. It was interesting how genuinely invested his students were...
The Ambrocian Chant was really bad i didnt like it at all. It seemed like the exact opposite of the Byzantine Chant which i liked alot so thats why i guess. The Papandrea St. Augustine Lecture: First of all I really liked the lecturer a lot more than last weeks. He really was alot more interesting and easier to learn from. I liked Augustine and thought it was interesting that his mistress remained unamed. I suppose that was because they werent really noticed alot in politics? Also, it was interesting to learn about the cults. i also thought the conversion was interesting how he said once you convert that doesn't mean you will be perfect, but it means "you will except yourself on a path".
What I found interesting in the lecture, was how Augustine viewed God and the analogies that Augustine used for the Trinity. Augustine believed that God has no attributes but he is those attributes. For example, one might say hat God has mercy. Augustine would say that God is mercy. "God simply is what God is," as the professor stated. I think that this is a valid point. God does not have everything good he is everything good. If God was not inherently perfect, God could not be everything good. However he is inherently perfect, therefore he is everything good.
ReplyDeleteThe two analogies that Augustine uses in his book, On the Trinity, are that man has the capability of memory, intellect, and will and Father being the Lover, the Son being the beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the Love that binds them. In first analogy, man has the capabilities of memory, intellect, and will, and yet we are one person. I found this analogy to be a valid argument for the trinity. All of these functions are a result of the brain. They are all somewhat related in that they all require the brain in order to function. Yet they are different in that each has a specific purpose, just as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit all have different purposes and are still one. The second analogy, however, as mentioned in the lecture, seems to discredit the Holy Spirit. Saying that the Holy Spirit is what binds the Father and the Son does not give full credit to the power of the Holy Spirit. These two analogies were fascinating to learn about as part of the history of Augustine.
I found interesting that Augusta was really the first Calvinist. I like how the speaker attributed Augusta’s Calvinist views to his pessimistic outlook. That man has no control over his actions what so ever and that we can never become better. I recently have been in a debate with a fellow believer and Calvinist about predestination. He thinks that in a way if we accepted God’s gift of salvation for and to everyone that we would have something to boast about and it would diminish Gods sovereignty over creation. In reality though God IS the only way we can be saved and some people will harden their hearts against what God plainly reveals to them while others will accept it. This really had an impact on the Church of the time because as we learned many people had denied the faith when under persecution. People like Augustas said that those who had forsaken the faith were not true believers therefore could not come back into the Church. The reason being that if God truly predestined someone nothing could separate them being one of Gods children, thus people who rejected the faith could not have been saved in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis change from God gives us freewill to God makes us believe seems to start out with subtle differences. Augustus starts out with common ground that man is deprived, but he goes on to say he is so deprived that he could not even willingly accept salvation without God. Now this too many believers was and is true, God needs to in a sense help our unbelief and help us to believe. But after he helps us to believe by giving us salvation does he finish it off by setting us of on our path to “conversion,” or do we have to make the choice? The difference come when he says the belief cannot be of ourselves but God gives us a gift and makes us accept it. This subtle difference between God making us take the gift and God allowing us to choose the gift must have confused many people during the time. The thought process would have been that without God and his gift none could come to salvation but the fine line between how that salvation was given or forced upon each person must have confused many orthodox Christians in Rome and Constantinople.
Augusta?
DeleteAmbrose was known to be a very good speaker, it was interesting that he was chosen to be the next bishop even though that he was not ordained to be a priest. But when Augustine heard the content, he liked how Ambrose interpreted the dialogue and style. One thing that Augustine liked was the allegorical interpretation of the gospel. Because of his good speaking Augustine began to take the gospel seriously. I find this fascinating that Ambrose had so much “sway” with his words. It sort of reminds me of Hitler, Hitler was a fantastic speaker and he held much sway with the Germans.
ReplyDeleteThe Ambrocian Chant was pretty eery but other than that I thought it pretty. To me, it seemed like the exact opposite of the Byzantine Chant! I really liked going back to the first chant and comparing the two of them.
ReplyDeleteThe Papandrea St. Augustine Lecture: First of all I really liked the lecturer a lot more than last weeks. He made it a ton more interesting. I was really fascinated with Augustine and thought it was interesting that his mistress was never named. I found it kind of surprising that he eventually broke off his relationship with her and then was NOT surprised to hear that he took another mistress. because it seems that normally the men that we have been reading about don't care-they will break whatever rules to marry a woman. Also, I'd never heard of the Manichees before so that was really interesting to hear about that cult.
That's true! The chants do seem really different. Wait till we get to the Muslim call to prayer. You feel like your soul is being sucked out of your stomach.
DeleteHearing the professor talk about Augustine's "City of God" was both interesting and convicting. Augustine puts forth the idea that there are two cities, the city of earth and the city of God. He says we may belong to one of the two but we cannot belong to both. I was reminded of the parable of the two masters. One cannot serve two masters, because he will always serve one over the other. We cannot be of the world and of God. We are told to be in the world, but not of it. We should not isolate ourselves from the world, because we will be no good for God's kingdom, and we should not identify ourselves with the world, because then we are not of God.
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting was his discussion of love. We cannot love the things of the world perfectly, because we will always have a fear that we will lose them. As 1 John 4:18 says "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear..." So the only things that we can love perfectly are God and His salvation, because we have no fear of losing them. God will never leave us, and he will not retract His salvation no matter what we do. So we need to try to love God and the things of God above all other things, because they are the only things we can love perfectly.
On the 'City of God' note, C.S. Lewis said, "Aim at Heaven and you will get earth "Thrown in." Aim at earth and you will get neither." By having an eternal perspective, with our securities in God, we will have confidence beyond what the world can provide, but which will drive us to accomplish God's work for us. "It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this one."
DeleteOne of the things that really stuck out to me during the lecture was something that the professor said towards the end. He said, "Which is stronger, purity or impurity? If purity is stronger, then you hope purity will purify the impure. If impurity is stronger, then you fear that impurity will taint the pure." I found this to be very intriguing. Which is stronger? Purity or impurity? I believe impurity to be stronger because of mankind's inherent sinful nature. Man can never be perfect or pure, the only one that can and was is, as we know, Jesus Christ. Which, of course, is why he was the only one who could die for all sin once. So this means that Augustine had it right, that impurity is stronger.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting that the council of Nicaea was not the first council Augustine called together. In light of all of the things that the professor talked about having to do with Augustine, it seems pretty clear that Augustine was, if not completely a true Christian, then at least devoted to serving this one true God that was revealed to him at the Milvian bridge.
Were you referring to Constantine in your second paragraph?
DeleteOh, that's an interesting and challenging quote Nathan! I missed that in the lecture. Within the realm of fallen earth, I agree that impurity is stronger. I like your point that, if impurity were not stronger, Christ's sacrifice would not seemingly have been necessary. However, in the grand scheme of things, it's purity that will win the day. Christ was pure. In that sense, purity is the stronger of the two.
Delete@G SP, Yes, I was, my bad. I thought I heard him mention that Augustine was at Nicaea, when in reality he was referring to Constantine while talking about Augustine.
Delete@Ian, I completely agree, in the end purity will "win the day". Which that is pretty much the hope that we have, the hope for the day when all will be made pure and perfect.
I thought this weeks lecture was interesting although it was very lengthy, unlike the last lecture. I thought the content and the teacher were a little better in this lecture. some of the things that i thought to be interesting was how you would get engaged to a girl at 12. I found that very weird, as i am sure all of you did. it was also interesting how they would then wait till she was 16 or so to get married. i also thought the view of conversion was interesting how he said once you convert that doesn't mean you will be perfect, but it means "you will except yourself on a path". but really it is like God setting you on a path. something i thought very interesting was when he was talking about conversion he said "my heart is restless until it find its rest in you" i find this statement very eye opening almost and that we should all think and have that mindset about God.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really like ambrosian chant i thought it was really ruff, last weeks was much better and i found myself listening to the byzantine chant throughout the week.
"If you love anything of the world, than it's not a pure love, it's not a perfect love, because it's a love that has fear." For if you love something that you can lose, then you will live in fear of losing it. Or if you do not have it, then you will live in fear of not getting it. As such, in away, all sin can be derived from this fear. This thought process portrayed by Augustine, is one that I find rather intriguing, as it one that make logical sense. For example, why do people steal? According to Augustine, it is because of the fear they will never receive the item they stole. However, a question that is more complex would be, why do people murder? It could be for a number of reasons, fear for their own love life, their love ones, or their love of possessions. But with all of these possible reasons, they revolve around the love of a worldly possession. According to Augustine, one should place their love in something that they will never lose, that is in the love of God. What is even more interesting is that if it were up to us, we could even lose God because of our sinful nature. However, the reason we do not lose Him, is not because of us, but because of Him. "God holds onto us by grace." Later in his studies, Augustine came to the conclusion that, "Grace is irresistible...if God wants you He will get you, and there is nothing you can do about it." I found both of these topics interesting on the basis that they allow for a greater understanding of human nature as well as our relationship with God.
ReplyDelete"If you love anything of the world, it's not perfect love, because it has fear." This quotation was my favorite portion of the lecture. The Professor described that faith in the world will always cause us to fear the loss of it. But faith in God is the assurance that we will never lose hope. It was really encouraging as he talked about who we but our faith in for the future. If we put our hope in the world, we will always be disappointed because sinful man can never fulfill our expectations. It is God who is perfect and holy. He, and only he, can assure us of our salvation. God has saved us and we he will never let us go. This doctrine comes from John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." When we put our faith in God, we can be assured that we are redeemed. God will never leave us or forsake us. Our destiny is secure in his hands. It is a great reminder not to "store up treasures" in this world - for a love of the world is unfulfilled - dependent on sinful people and things - and thus fearful and anxious. Yet God's "perfect love casts our fear" as John states. What a blessed assurance.
ReplyDeleteYou've presented a very straightforward point! I don't know that I have much to add, but I do really like that quote too! It's an interestingly true dynamic and I like that simple way that Augustine logically plays it out. As I was reading your post I was thinking of that "perfect love casts out fear verse" too. I see you had the same thought!
DeletePlease excuse my lame, cliché pop-culture reference. It does seem to fit in a strange way. "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering."
DeleteI really enjoyed the speaker! Anyhow, onwards to the actual content...
ReplyDelete"First you believe in something and then you learn to understand it."
I found Augustine's debate over the statement above quite interesting. At first he believed the opposite. He believed that in order to believe in something he had to understand it beforehand. As he delved further in the study of the faith, he came to understand that it really was the other way around. This direct contradiction reminded me of one of Athanasius's arguments--we studied the argument last week for Lit. in Romans and 1 Corinthians--in "On the Incarnation". The given scriptures essentially say that Man sees God's way as foolish and likewise God sees Man's way as foolish. “Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know, God was please through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:20b-21) Aside from the desire for wisdom factor, Augustine's arguments and Athanasius's arguments aren't identical. That said, they still represent the same sort of dynamic, hence the connection.
Moving on from connections between subjects, one quote from the lecture that particularly caught my attention was the following...
"Human beings are really the only animals capable of pointless destruction."
Prior to listening to this lecture, I'd never directly considered that before. Augustine makes a fascinating point! In addition to the conclusions that Augustine draws from this idea, I think the quote is a good pointer for Christians today. The statement shows that while we're the most intelligent creatures of creation, we're also the most susceptible to internal evil and corruption. Other animals only kill and destroy out of fear (e.g. self defense) or need (e.g. food), unless the given animal is perhaps rabid. Humans, on the other hand, have been witnessed to kill and destroy for the soul purpose of entertainment and sick desires. If you're not convinced, and aside from all the horrible things that happen in the real-world anyway, just look at films and video games these days. Some humans have become rabid, so to speak, for the soul reason of being rabid. There are those who love evil for evil's sake. I think Augustine simplistic incite on this subject is really quite profound!
There were many fascinating things in the lecture this week, and it was really interesting to learn how some of the basic orthodox doctrine we have today originated with Augustine. Specifically the doctrine of election seems to be first really established and emphasized by Augustine, and the arguments he used to support this doctrine are intriguing. Augustine believed that almost all sin originates from fear, and especially the fear of losing what you love. Because everything on this fallen Earth is corruptible and perishable it will all be lost at some point, and humans all live in uncertainty and fear. The falleness and weakness of the human will was another one of the things that convinced Augustine that there could not be free will, and in the lecture the professor mentioned that “Augustine realized the power of the peer pressure, mob mentality, the pressure to go along with the group, and how it overcomes the individual willpower. Humans are the only ‘animal’ capable of wanton destruction. Augustine is skeptical of human progress toward perfection; if humans cannot be trusted, the only one who can be trusted is God.” The only thing that cannot be lost is that which is eternal, and Augustine held that if we were able to choose our salvation we could also lose it, and would thus be living in a fear of that loss.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how some of the most influential and well known Christian clergymen have come from a more
ReplyDelete"un-Christian" background. A few men particularity come to mind. The first, obviously, is Augustine, who previously had his roots in the Monicheism that championed a more contemporary form of Gnosticism in that time period, but later he was converted to Christianity (aided by the persistent nudging of his mother, Monica). After his conversion, he became a powerful and popular figurehead of Christianity among his generation and even today. Another highly influential Christian that comes to mind is none other than Paul. We all know the story of Paul. The man who first supported the persecution of Christians but later was converted to Christianity, and I think we all can fill in the blanks what he did for Christianity later in his life. Another man who may not have been the keenest Christian, but still played an important role was Constantine. Constantine came from a highly pagan upbringing then was dramatically converted to Christianity upon his alleged vision during one of his conquests in the West. Overall, these three men have very similar stories that begin with an upbringing that was usually seeded in more pagan, Gnostic, or atheistic ideologies, but through the miraculous handiwork of God, were converted to followers of Christ who went on to do significant things for His Kingdom. I think this illustrates how truly awesome our God is while simultaneously showing a bit of His cleverness. After all, by converting these three men, people realized the grandeur of God: If the Christian God could convert such Gnostic men like Augustine, or pagan men like Constantine, or men that even persecuted Christians like Paul, then that God must be a powerful God indeed. So it is not by mere coincidence that God chooses such men, but by a divine and intricate process that He uses for the purpose of His Kingdom. Although these processes are usually far beyond human comprehension, we can always trust that everything that God does will work out in a way that is best not for our worldly desires, but for mankind's spiritual needs.
I agree with the consensus: Augustine's view on the predestination/freewill is very interesting. It is very hard to support a position exclusively for either of these. For example, if one supports only freewill, what does one do with Ephesians 1:5? Likewise, if one supports only predestination, did God manually put sin into the world through the fall? It seems as though a balance between these positions is needed, and Augustine addressed the issue with this belief: Humans were originally created with freewill, but by choosing sin, lost true powers of decision making. It is thus God's plan alone propelling humanity forward, and God's will alone that selects His followers.
ReplyDeleteThrough the fall, we lost direct contact with God and perfect fulfillment of the law. Adding freewill to that list is not a far jump and is very insightful. Throughout Romans 6, Paul compares humanity to a slave. All begin as slaves to sin. Augustine used this comparison to say that w cannot make our own decisions, as sin makes them for us. Paul goes on to say, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life" (Romans 6:22). According to Augustine, this means that, just as sin guided our decisions, when we come to God we are guided directly by him. Whether or not this is what Paul actually meant by this passage, I don't know, but it fits pretty well with what Augustine is saying.
Personally, I think the predestination/freewill equilibrium is elsewhere. While I think Augustine's belief that we lost mastery over ourselves in the fall is true, I don't think we are merely God's puppets. There is a difference between a slave/servant and an automaton. Even when we are slaves to God, there is action on our part. My thoughts aside, this view was unique among early church bishops, and Augustine shows the diversity of thought within orthodoxy in the quickly developing church.
I really enjoyed listening to his lecture, he was very serious at times, but he was also like "Human" and not this guy that knows everything to the point where you're like afraid to talk to him about things. He was obviously well liked by the class, which was cool for me to see. It was interesting how genuinely invested his students were...
ReplyDeleteThe Ambrocian Chant was really bad i didnt like it at all. It seemed like the exact opposite of the Byzantine Chant which i liked alot so thats why i guess.
ReplyDeleteThe Papandrea St. Augustine Lecture: First of all I really liked the lecturer a lot more than last weeks. He really was alot more interesting and easier to learn from. I liked Augustine and thought it was interesting that his mistress remained unamed. I suppose that was because they werent really noticed alot in politics? Also, it was interesting to learn about the cults. i also thought the conversion was interesting how he said once you convert that doesn't mean you will be perfect, but it means "you will except yourself on a path".