Augustine & Protestantism

Are there really anons here that think this Bishop of Hippo was a Protestant?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >whitewashing
    Yikes!

  2. 4 months ago
    Dirk

    No, but the question demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of what protestantism is. It does not claim to be the one true church, it's a movement within the church kind of like religious orders (augustinians, benedictines etc)

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >movement
      you mean separation

      • 4 months ago
        Dirk

        Victim blaming

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          luther was a victim of corruption sure, he still birth an explicably massive error by divesting obedience for the sake of self correction, being a vigilante can be morally permisible in a legal context but not in the church

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah not even close. Protestant ecclesial communities are not in communion with the Church. There is one and only one Catholic Church in heaven and on earth.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes we are

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          No you're not. There is only one institution on earth that is the Catholic Church.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, the catholic church, with a lowercase c.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, the catholic church, with a lowercase c.

            At least one of you is damned to a fate worse than infinite torture, perhaps both. Let that sink in. Bad religion.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >perhaps both
            Or neither

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            If it was neither then they wouldn’t be fighting

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was self-consciously a schism during Luther's own lifetime. Making national princes and kings heads of the church invariably means many churches, each accountable to the secular power. This is explicit.

      As to Saint Augustine's views, I have no doubt he would have sympathies with many of the Reformation's reform policies and even some of their theology. But he would abhor the schismatic element (see him re the Donatists). He would also (rightly) see how some theological innovations have led to the sacraments disappearing from churches, and how, once the schism began, the Protestants then had schism after schism after schism until now each church is almost an island onto itself, and people in no way feel comfortable going to churches while away from home, because any other church is of course not "their church."

      Augustine was comfortable with polysemy and local traditions, provided they weren't dangerous, and fairly open minded, but not on some things. He would probably have less problems with the Orthodox, even though they have been less influenced by him (and indeed there is good scholarship suggesting Augustine did have a conception of dedication).

      • 4 months ago
        Dirk

        Who anathematized who?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe read a book on Luther? Even when the Pope was still trying to give him an out to quash the beef and Erasmus was trying to win him back towards a path of reform instead of schism Luther was being two-faced in his letters, saying "no, I just want reform" while calling the Church the "synagogue of Satan," and the Pope the "chief servant of Satan," in letters dated the same week.

          And he would soon openly begin calling for the destruction of the entire church apparatus and declaring it all Satanic, then excising inconvenient parts of the Bible (originally considering James and Revelations had to go too).

          And then, when the oppressed rose up to see actual social reform, what was his response?

          >To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs

          He went full on into embracing "the problem isn't the Pope, it's that kings should get to be the Pope." Plenty in the Church wanted to go back to more councils and stronger councils, but Luther wouldn't delegate any authority and opposed councils as a solution.

          Let's not even get into the whole "let's let a prince do bigamy because he wants it and it'll be 'less sinful,'" thing. Basically, "he who has money is righteous and blessed." And of course, we end up with the prosperity gospel and American evangelicalism making Ayn Rand an almost Saint lol. It's a far cry from Mary's song...

          • 4 months ago
            Dirk

            The evangelical faith was proscribed, not Luther the man

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because Evangelicals were closing down all Catholic churches they could, smashing the art, and stealing the wealth.

            A huge motivation for princes turning Evangelical was that:
            A. They got tons of social control because they basically had someone saying "the prince is Pope in his territory and he can appoint bishops."
            B. They could steal all the wealth of the church.

            This happened as soon as the movement got going. There was a huge move to seize church property. Did it go to the Evangelical movement? To the poor? No, it went to those in power, predictably.

            It's not like Catholics in Germany or Switzerland we're allowed to keep their priests or worship. They had to convert or flee (often without their property).

            And go look up how the monestaries were closed, even the ones where all the inhabitants took oaths of poverty and were focused on contemplation, not interfering with secular affairs. At best they were chased out, but sometimes those sent to expel then would rape the nuns first.

          • 4 months ago
            Dirk

            You're starting with an assumption that your preferred side was right and searching for a justification out of any historical event

            The Roman church proscribed the evangelical faith because they rejected it theologically. They were wrong.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Both sides did things that were wrong but the idea that the movement didn't very quickly evolve towards "each government gets its own church," is just not historical. It was explicitly a schism.

            Both sides err, but instead of just error that needs to be reformed now you have endless schism.

          • 4 months ago
            Dirk

            Ok?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Strongest D*rk argument. Concession: accepted.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Luther seems to have just become a shill of German Princes who wanted to detach themselves from their rightful lord.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well, and all the schisms predictably led to wide spread atheism and an overall culture of atheism. America held out on this for a bit, but now it's catching up on England, Scandinavia, etc., where only a remnant is left.

        The West overall has become atheistic, but if you look at Italy, Hungary, Poland, Ireland, Latin America, etc. it isn't at all on the same level.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    In Luther's own words.

    >It is a trifle for God to massacre a lot of peasants, when He drowned the whole world with a flood and wiped out Sodom with fire. He is an almighty and frightful God.” “If there are innocent men amongst the peasants, God will certainly prepare and keep them, as He did with Lot and Jeremiah." “will not forbid such rulers as are able, to chastise and slay the peasants without previously them offering terms, even though the Gospel does not permit it."” Once more, the Devil is brought into it." “he peasants serve the Devil. . . . I believe that there are no devils left in hell, but all of them have entered into peasants." And Luther surpasses himself when he exclaims: “what strange times are these when a prince can enter heaven by the shedding of blood more certainly than others by means of prayer!"” And he ends with the peroration: "Come, dearly-beloved lords and nobles, strike them, transfix them, and cut their throats with might and main. Should you find death in so doing, you could not wish for one more divine, for you would fall in obedience to God and in defending your like against the hordes of Satan."” I

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >because God sees fit to kill people for their sins, it is also the right of me and my supporters/allies to kill people I deem evil
      how is this man not condemned as the biggest antichrist since Nero

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I dunno but I think he fudged on Original Sin.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, the whole "genetic sin passed through male seed," is nowhere in the Bible. But I feel like lots of early theologians were guilty of that sort of speculation. What made this different is that it got enshrined as doctrine.

      It's a place where the Orthodox seem to get more right. "Cursed is the ground because of you," etc. does seem more like the entire world gets broken, and this "ancestral sin," this traps us in a world that is a web of sin.

      Augustine is alright on some things, good prose, good discussion of the Trinity, good psychology, but he was too much of a arguer and trench fighter for his own good. It makes him incautiously fall into unsupportable positions.

      But people slander him by calling him proto-Calvin. Calvin takes the worst parts of Augustine up to 11.

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, he was just a fricking moron. He didn't even have the balls to adhere to his own hardcore, anti-Pelagian "the mind of God is inscrutable" position. He would later backtrack his own beliefs on hell lmao.

    Pelagius: No just god would condemn infants to an eternity in hell just for the crime of dying before they got a chance to be baptized.
    Augustine: Oh yeah he would! Just because it'd be depraved and immoral for an ordinary human to bestow eternal punishment on someone whose only crime in life was dying before getting baptized doesn't mean it's depraved and immoral for God to do the exact same thing. When God does it, that means it's not cruel and evil!

    >[years after Pelagius is defeated...]
    Augustine: Ok but seriously, now that that guy's gone it 100% is fricked up for God to condemn unbaptized, dead infants to eternal separation from himself. The infants haven’t chosen to permanently divorce themselves from God’s love; they haven’t chosen to do anything wrong, they’re dead infants being punished for the sin of Adam, despite not yet having the chance to truly learn about things like sin, Adam, and God. So, although unbaptized infants are condemned to an eternity in hell, God still protects them from the agony suffered by those who’re consigned to hell for misdeeds they themselves have actually committed. By asserting this new position I can continue to claim that I was right and that Pelagius was wrong, even though I’m actually admitting he was basically correct and that a God who seriously allows unbaptized, dead infants to suffer eternal separation from him for crimes they didn’t commit is wholly unworthy of worship.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The entire fight over original sin was just Augustine and his ghouls worried that unless everyone was born into this world already destined for hell and therefore in need of the clergy and its sacraments to save them, the entirety of the clergy itself might become redundant. Pelagius’ position, that no worthy God would seriously constitute someone dying with zero sins committed in life but also no baptism received as sufficient grounds for eternal separation from himself, can’t be tolerated; it opens up the incredibly unlikely (although still technically possible) scenario that someone can go through their entire life without committing one sin and having absolutely no need for the clergy in any way whatsoever for their entry into heaven. Although this scenario (a life where one commits no sins whatsoever) may be so difficult to achieve that it’s virtually impossible, it was still considered way too much of a threat for Augustine. Even this infinitesimally small hole which would theoretically make the clergy redundant and meaningless for only the rarest of virtuous individuals was simply too big of a risk for him. EVERYONE needs to enter this world fully guilty of the original sin and destined to hell because of it, even if the collateral damage from that position is that unbaptized babies also have to go to hell as well; otherwise, the clergy isn’t absolutely indispensable for the salvation of each and every human being who’ll ever live.

      The Catholic church has produced many worthy thinkers, but Augustine of Hippo was just a wretched bootlicker. In his mind, it was perfectly okay for countless parents to become overwhelmed with grief at the thought that they’re the reason their child will now be separated from God forever, so long as the clergy never has to worry about being out of a job, which was Augustine's only true concern.

      Frick Augustine, and frick any moron who tries to grope for a softer light they can but that degenerate under.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The entire fight over original sin was just Augustine and his ghouls worried that unless everyone was born into this world already destined for hell and therefore in need of the clergy and its sacraments to save them, the entirety of the clergy itself might become redundant. Pelagius’ position, that no worthy God would seriously constitute someone dying with zero sins committed in life but also no baptism received as sufficient grounds for eternal separation from himself, can’t be tolerated; it opens up the incredibly unlikely (although still technically possible) scenario that someone can go through their entire life without committing one sin and having absolutely no need for the clergy in any way whatsoever for their entry into heaven. Although this scenario (a life where one commits no sins whatsoever) may be so difficult to achieve that it’s virtually impossible, it was still considered way too much of a threat for Augustine. Even this infinitesimally small hole which would theoretically make the clergy redundant and meaningless for only the rarest of virtuous individuals was simply too big of a risk for him. EVERYONE needs to enter this world fully guilty of the original sin and destined to hell because of it, even if the collateral damage from that position is that unbaptized babies also have to go to hell as well; otherwise, the clergy isn’t absolutely indispensable for the salvation of each and every human being who’ll ever live.

      The Catholic church has produced many worthy thinkers, but Augustine of Hippo was just a wretched bootlicker. In his mind, it was perfectly okay for countless parents to become overwhelmed with grief at the thought that they’re the reason their child will now be separated from God forever, so long as the clergy never has to worry about being out of a job, which was Augustine's only true concern.

      Frick Augustine, and frick any moron who tries to grope for a softer light they can but that degenerate under.

      good post fun read.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >He would later backtrack his own beliefs on hell lmao
      how

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Augustine: Ok but seriously, now that that guy's gone it 100% is fricked up for God to condemn unbaptized, dead infants to eternal separation from himself.
      Proofs? Sounds like you made it up

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *