Reading a few websites isn't doing due diligence, especially since you've been pretty vicious in your attacks on St. Augustine for..........hmm.....about as long as I've known you.

But there's still this question. If you have such a dim view of the Calvinists et al in their approach to interpreting Scripture and the Fathers, why on earth do you in any way credit their readings of St. Augustine? More--how is your own approach to St. Augustine different from the way you've described those Calvinists et al. How thorough or sympathetic is your grasp of your much hated St. Augustine? Oftentimes, Ed, I get the strong sense that nowadays in your Orthodox garb you're every bit the anti-Catholic you were back in your Calvinist garb.

To contribute the highjacking of my own thread I'll point out Shameless Poppery did a great post on how St. Augustine demonstrated that his teachings truly were Catholic by proper use of the Church Fathers versus his pelagian interlocutor

Turns out not only is St. Augustine a saint amoung the EO (which was a given) but also his student St. Prosper of Aquitaine, who went about spreading Augustinian ideas of grace.

Seem strange that if there was any problem with Augustinianism in the East that it's biggest promoter would be venerated as a saint.

I do have to question your first sentence. My problems with Western theology only began after I went to seminary in 2011. You and I have been on this board a whole lot longer than that.

I sent you a PM regarding what you said in the 2nd paragraph.

I think it best at this time that

A.) I excuse myself from further discussion here, given that as you have pointed out, I am in need of some attitude correction and this thread will not be helpful to that

B.) I apologize and ask forgiveness of all who have been offended by what I have said.

C.) I ask for your prayers.

Thank you.

Perhaps you've already decided to do so, but please never try to learn about anyone primarily from those who have an axe to grind.

Well, you'd remember the specifics much better than I do, so I take it back. I remember lots of dust-ups about St. Augustine, so I guess I extended them backwards further than legitimate.


Replied....

Hear, hear!

Without regard to any previous posts, which I have not read, I am reading Dante. That gives me a pretty good idea of Hell in the medieval mind.

It doesn't matter how many words for love there are in the original Greek of the Bible, they're all irrelevant except for the one Greek word that John used, and with a little googling I see that word is 'agape', and that it's the same word in the Sermon on the Mount:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love (agapēseis) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love (agapāte) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".

So it's not something that's beyond human understanding because Jesus told us to 'love' with the same word as John used to say 'God is love'. It requires some sort of Orwellian doublethink to believe that 'God is love' simultaneously with believing that 'the vast majority of those who will ever be born will not be redeemed, but suffer eternal torment...'.

Schopenhauer said: 'According to this doctrine, then, God created out of nothing a weak race prone to sin, in order to give them over to endless torment.

...And, as a last characteristic, we are told that this God, who prescribes forbearance and forgiveness of every fault, exercises none himself, but does the exact opposite; for a punishment which comes at the end of all things, when the world is over and done with, cannot have for its object either to improve or deter, and is therefore pure vengeance.'

I can't see how these two opposite beliefs can be reconciled. So I'm more inclined here to agree with Light of the East who has enlightened me on this.

Somebody should have told Lewis.

I tried to, but he wouldn’t listen. He was most inconveniently dead at the time and, alas, remains so to this day.

There's a lot of folks like that.

Indeed, I would go even further than that and give another statement of what I call 'Doom's First Law'

Doom's First Law states: if you are ever reading one author, describe the supposed views of another author, and the views ascribed to said writer seem to be transparently stupid or ridiculous, then the description is probably a distortion.

And while I'm at it, I might as well also mention Doom's Second law, which is related to the first law.

Doom's Second Law States: If you ever read an author, or speak to someone in person, who seems to be confirming you in all of your prejudices and telling you everything that you want to hear, especially when what you want to hear is that certain other people that you really dislike, are really, really bad people, then you are probably being lied to for the sake of manipulating your emotions. That someone is telling you everything you want to hear, is a mark of the flatterer.

The Bible also says, Who is like God. God's ways are higher than our ways. Our knowledge is imperfect.
The Bible refers to "mystery".

For man, judgemental attitudes are wrong because they make us neglect our own sin sand because we can't know other's intentions. But God is holy and omniscient. So there is a difference. Our you can take murder. Man shouldn't kill, but God doesn't do wrong if he lets a person die.

Agape is not philia, nor is it eros.

The point is that "love" exists in several different senses and you have to understand exactly what is meant in order to understand it's implications.



She never said anything of the sort. You've simply invented a strawman argument to pound on.

And you're also in serious error fundamentally regarding Redemption. The Bible is clear that the Redemption is offered to ALL.

All have been Redeemed, but that in no way follows that all will be saved.



And Schoppenhauer seems to not know what he's talking about.



No doubt you can't reconcile them because you don't even have a proper grasp of the problem. Your fundamental axioms are wrong. You're completely misconstruing God, human free will, and the intrinsic relationship between sin and punishment.

This is indicated in your assumed idea that the punishment of hell "cannot have for it's object to either imrove or deter". You apparently haven't conceived of the idea that the person would rather have the punishment of hell in order to have the sin they love. That they don't want "improvement" or to be deterred. And that their alienation from God is as much a consequence of their own desire as it is God's judgement.

Thus the "object" of hell, if there is such a thing, is to give the reprobate exactly what they want. Of course they won't even be able to have that since sin of it's very nature is void of any real substance and it is inherently dissipatory, so even the apparent "goods" that the reprobate believed they'd find fulfilled in sin will be shown to be illusory, thus all they will have left of the object of their love is the punishment that they gave all for.

"To force the man to give us everything that we want and to give him nothing in return....that is what really gladdens our father's heart."
- Screwtape