Mr. Armstrong, I just wanted to say that I absolutely do not have anything against you personally, but feel as many other Conservative Evangelicals, dedicated to the teachings of Classic Protestantism, that your conversion to Roman Catholicism opens up the question, "Was the Protestant Reformation Really Necessary?"
If you must be Roman Catholic (I myself graduated from a Roman Catholic Parochial School), I would encourage you to look into the soteriological teachings of Augustine, Pascal, Gottschalk and Jansen, since contemporary Roman Catholic teaching on Justification is inherently synergisitc and has been unduly dominated by Thomistic and Semi-Pelagian epistemological ideas that have spiled over into the realm of Soteriology which is ultimately a restatement of the thought of Aristotle.
By using the terms “Pelagian” and “Semi Pelagian” I am referring to those who follow or moderately follow the soteriological and anthropological teachings of the British Monk and Theologian Pelagius (354-440 A.D.) who, against the theological positions of Augustine of Hippo (354-430) on “free will”, “Original Sin” and “Predestination.” Pelagius believed and taught that Adam’s sin in no way is passed to his subsequent descendants or progeny and thus are not born inherently sinful or “totally depraved”, rather they are born in state of spiritual neutrality before God with the capability within their own power to choose God. Consequently, those who follow after Pelagius and his theological views on soteriology have been called “Pelagian” and those who follow a modified and moderate view of Pelagius; teachings especially against Original Sin and Free Will” have historically been called “Semi-Pelagian.” Arminians have been called “Semi-Pelagian” since they deny Original Sin, total depravity, unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints as did Pelagius.
Over the last decade, first as a student at Biola University and then as a member of a Calvary Chapel here in Southern California, I have been involved in a debate with several former Evangelical Christians who have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.
As I have attempted to understand the doctrinal distinctiveness of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I have grown exceedingly concerned over Eastern Orthodoxy’s denial of the Evangelical Doctrine of Justification by Grace through Faith in Christ Alone that teaches that men and women are justified or declared righteous by God once and of all, via the sovereign grace of God alone, whereby God graciously imputes the righteousness of Christ to an unregenerate person apart from human merit or cooperation or any kind.
The Importance of Justification by Grace Alone
In the forensic and soteriological judicial act of God in justifying a person, God permanently accepts and adopts a person into His kingdom and views that person via the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, as positionally or declaratively righteous and thereby absolved from the impen
"why can't Pastor Luke (if that is his real name) do the simple searches that I am about to do, so that he can speak factually, not speculatively?"
Rather, why can't your readers read your books with greater care? Why don't they do the work of checking your facts and research?
You need to give them the same hard time you give those who question your work Dave. They should at least be able to cite your book correctly.
Hi Lee,
You are welcome to refute any of my many existing papers on soteriology, rather than simply presenting the usual Protestant catch-phrases over and over and inaccurately collapsing our views into a denial of original sin and alleged espousal of semi-Pelagianism.
Anyone can make statements. But can you argue your positions? And can you do so from the Bible? Recently, e.g., I wrote an extensive paper on Total Depravity. But none of the anti-Catholic bigshots were willing to interact with it. E.g., James White responds to everything Dave Hunt writes about Calvinism, even though the man has been shown to be a lightweight over and over, and to have little comprehension of what Calvinism is. But he'll ignore my papers, that are filled with scriptural arguments (agree or disagree).
If you want to do some comparative exegesis, I'd be more than happy to do so. All the more so if you are capable of doing so without the almost obligatory potshots and ad hominem attacks, so typical of Protestant critics of Catholicism.
without the almost obligatory potshots and ad hominem attacks, so typical of Protestant critics of Catholicism
Ah, I see the pot has met the kettle.
O.S. Luke, in his latest post in the CA thread in question, seems oblivious to his own errors, and wants to place all the blame on Manny, who was simply "guilty" of citing a point he read by memory, without complete accuracy.
Luke arguably does far worse, because he makes definite claims that are easily falsifiable; and I virtually did falsify them,. His latest comment:
"Manny, . . . You are putting a few words into both Calvin AND Armstrong's mouth regarding Pelagianism, which is the heart of this thread, is it not? That was the original argument."
Majoring on the minors; blaming the other guy and ignoring critiques of your own arguments: all (sadly) standard Internet procedures these days. Perhaps Rev. Luke will reply properly to my paper in due course (we now know he is aware of my response). Initial indications, however, are not encouraging.
I would encourage you to look into the soteriological teachings of Augustine, Pascal, Gottschalk and Jansen, since contemporary Roman Catholic teaching on Justification is inherently synergisitc and has been unduly dominated by Thomistic and Semi-Pelagian epistemological ideas that have spiled over into the realm of Soteriology which is ultimately a restatement of the thought of Aristotle.
It's the other way around. The heretical perversions of Augustine by semi-Arian heretics like Gottschalk and Jansen and by the vain philosophical speculations of Pascal completely blew by the corrections of Aristotle made by Augustine and the Schoolmen. The Christian dogma of synergism, including Augustine's eloquent formulation of that synergism, was replaced by the monergist heresy. People who "look into" Gottschalk and Jansen understand why they were heretics; only a superficial understanding of history makes them appear Augustinian.
How about this: science proves "free will" -- in fruit flies!!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...70516071806.htm
I only hope that the fruit flies - if they know what's good for them - will keep this strictly to themselves; lest they too be accused by the Kooky Calvinists (ever desirous of hurtling false accusations) of trying to "earn" salvation. 
LOL, Ben
Jonathan,
You think Pascal's speculations were "vain"? Peter Kreeft sure doesn't think so (having written an entire book commenting on the Pensees), and he is no enemy to Aristotelianism or St. Thomas.
I am glad you made this article. It is very important to point out that Calvin did NOT really accept St Augustine's teachings, despite how much he quoted from him.
In a way its good that these protestants have been lied to regarding the facts, that makes Catholic Apologist's job a lot easer because when the challenge is presented to the Protestant they have no excuse to not only face the facts (eg Augustine was NOT Calvinist) but to realize they have been lied to and led astray.
With a fair and open mind one finds that Catholicism is the only place that can provide the answers.
A few weeks ago, during the homily at Sunday Mass, the priest (I think it was Fr. Brenda) quoted the following from St. Augustine:
“We know that the day of eternity is coming and it is good for us to know this. It is also good not to know exactly when it will come. This forces us to prepare for eternity by living a good life now. It is in our power now to decide whether our eternity will be in heaven or hell. Right now is the time when we can determine what our eternity will be. God mercifully hides the moment when our earthly life will end but he even more mercifully delays its ending so that we can have more time now to prepare." Commentary On Psalm 36/1, # 1
I was amazed. I had never heard this before. Augustine sure doesn’t sound very Calvinistic here.
As soon as I get a little free time I’ll cruse out to the library at St. Mary’s seminary and see if I can document this more thoroughly. I’d like to get the larger context.
Also, while searching “Google books” for a somewhat more familiar saying of Augustine, namely,
"God who created thee without thee, won't save thee without thee,”
I ran across these rather curious comments of Luther with regard to it.
http://books.google.com/books?id...XkJofgyxQ-
M0hO8
Note: There are several variants of this saying: Sometimes "God" is replaced with "He," “thee” with “you,” and “save” with “justify.”
You think Pascal's speculations were "vain"? Peter Kreeft sure doesn't think so (having written an entire book commenting on the Pensees), and he is no enemy to Aristotelianism or St. Thomas.
Only with respect to Jansenism, which I presume is what the commenter had in mind. He is certainly capable of rehabilitation; he simply let his speculations go too far on that point.
I have heard somewhere that Pascal actually wasn't a Jansenist himself, but don't quote me on it.
Dear Ben M.
There appears to be a mistake on this. Please investigate.
Maybe I am getting this wrong, but I could not find it.
Commentary On Psalm 36/1, # 1
Augustine's Commentary on Psalm 36,1, does not include the quote you give. Am I missing something?
I looked at it at:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/
...8.ii.XXXVI.html
Could you check the source again and this and try to find the correct source for the Augustine quote?
Ken,
Could possibly be that little nuisance where Catholic Bibles have the Psalms numbered one differently from Protestant ones. I think that was based on the Vulgate or something. Check the Augustine commentaries on the Psalms before and after and it may solve your problem.
Ken, Dave,
One problem I've noticed with finding these kinds of quotes is wording. Even a small change can sometimes pose major problems, which is probably why I’ve only been able to find it online here:
http://www.augustinianfriends.or.../
hom_lent3c.htm (this is where I originally got the source cite from)
I haven't gotten out to St. Mary's yet. However, barring any unforeseen, I'll make it a point to get out there this week. The Cardinal Beran Library, while not huge, is pretty well stocked, so I should be able to track down where in Augustine's writings this quote occurs (assuming of course Augustine did in fact make it). Also, one of the ladies who work there (Jan) has been very helpful in the past. If need be I'll press her into service again.
Some other options are:
Call/email the above "Augustinian Friends" - D'oh!
St. Thomas University library (good).
The Fondren library at Rice, http://www.rice.edu/fondren/ (very good). Fondren has a large collection of theological works including the 103 volume Corpus Reformatorum (great if one is fluent in Latin, German, French!!) and numerous editions of Luther’s works including the complete Walsh ed. (St. Louis ed., based on the earlier Halle ed.). But here again, one had better have a thorough knowledge of Latin and German! My German is just good enough to allow me to barely navigate through some of this stuff- but forget any major translation work! Sprechen sie deutsch?
And if all else fails, I’ll just ask Augustine himself, using this device :
Of course with my luck, I too would probably wind up aboard the Titanic! D'oh!
On difference in numbers of the Psalms based on Latin vulgate.
I did think of that and looked and still could not find it.
Thanks
It sounds like a variant of Ennar. Psalm. 36/7 (I think the 1 is a typo; the slash notation is the usual way of handling the dual number problems), 1: "With terror do they hear of the coming of the last day, who will not be secure by living well: and who fain would live ill, long. But it was for useful purposes that God willed that day to remain unknown; that the heart may be ever ready to expect that of which it knows it is to come, but knows not when it is to come." There's an ellipse at the back of the both New Advent version and Schaff's version, which suggests that there might be several versions. The quote probably comes from some other textual variant, although it might be difficult to find which one. Probably better to ask the priest himself where he got it than to try to find a needle in a haystack (i.e., looking at all the textual variants until you find the one).
Commenting by HaloScan
