Thomas Ă Kempis in the 15th century told us we should imitate Christ, so it will surprise some Christians that Augustine a millennium earlier had a different understanding. Augustine described his pre-conversion understanding of Jesus as â€śa man of most excellent wisdom,â€ť but Gerald Bray tells how the great thinker came to see that â€śwhat the Son of God did on the cross was something no ordinary human being could ever do. He took our sins upon himself, not in order to set us an example that we should imitate but in order to remove from us the burden of sin and death that prevents us from enjoying fellowship with him and eternal life. We must be crucified with Christ, not strengthened by his example.â€ť If that analysis interests you, please read the following excerpt from Brayâ€™s Augustine on the Christian Life: Transformed by the Power of God (Crossway, 2015). â€”Marvin Olasky...
John Yurich USA wrote: I never stated I know for certain that Saint Augustine was saved. I call him Saint because he has been known as Saint Augustine for years. Even the Protestant Reformers referred to him as Saint Augustine. Some Baptists refer to him as Saint Augustine. If Jesus is the only one who knows if Saint Augustine was saved then nobody should state categorically they know that he was not saved.
You miss the point, John. Saint isn't a first name. If, as you say, Jesus is the only one who knows if he was saved, then no one else has the right to call him Saint Augustine, not even you, because that assumes he was saved. You need be consistent in what you say you believe, and follow it to its logical conclusion.
Ok, nobody can state categorically that any person wasn't saved before they died, but we can assume fairly accurately, I think. I think your logic, John, is that maybe a person was born again the moment before they took their last breath. The problem I see with that is that there would be a "coming around" time before that. A time of searching, questioning, reflection...some sort of evidence either verbally or otherwise that might cause others to go, "Hmmm, maybe, just maybe". When someone dies as they had always been spiritually, or morally, believing this or that as they always had, and having shown no signs, whatsoever, of Christ having broken through to them beforehand, the hope is slim to nonexistent. Highly unlikely, unfortunately, but yes, only God knows for certain.
Mike wrote: You have no way of knowing for certain he was saved. So why do you call him Saint, since for certain, only the saved are saints?
I never stated I know for certain that Saint Augustine was saved. I call him Saint because he has been known as Saint Augustine for years. Even the Protestant Reformers referred to him as Saint Augustine. Some Baptists refer to him as Saint Augustine. If Jesus is the only one who knows if Saint Augustine was saved then nobody should state categorically they know that he was not saved.
John Yurich USA wrote: You have no way of knowing for certain that Saint Augustine was not saved. Only Jesus knows that for certain. Saint Augustine might have embraced Jesus as Lord and Savior and trusted in Him alone for salvation.
You have no way of knowing for certain he was saved. So why do you call him Saint, since for certain, only the saved are saints?
StuckonStupid wrote: Augustine was no more saved than the devil is!!!
You have no way of knowing for certain that Saint Augustine was not saved. Only Jesus knows that for certain. Saint Augustine might have embraced Jesus as Lord and Savior and trusted in Him alone for salvation.
Actually, Dave, the debate was settled before Augustine.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.---ESV
So, Augustine has some good points, he condemned Pelagianism q.v., [URL=http://www.withchrist.org/unholy.htm]]]The Unholy Alliance[/URL] and bad, amillennialism q.v., [URL=http://withchrist.org/millennial.htm]]]The Millennium[/URL].
Yes, Baptists, just like NeedHim, and others point out, we reject the Church fathers outright especially the Nicene Church fathers the ones who came after the Council of Nicea. They are totally unnecessary and usually counter-productive such as, [URL=http://bible.org/article/theology-adrift-early-church-fathers-and-their-views-eschatology]]]http://tinyurl.com/zkamfkc (Theology Adrift: The Early Church Fathers and Their Views of Eschatology)[/URL] from which, 'In the words of our Baptist forefathers: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience" and "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: Unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men."'
There can be some benefit at looking at some of these Church "Fathers," [URL=https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/why-reformers-read-fathers/]]]Why the Reformers Read the Fathers[/URL] Christianity doesn't get it's legitimacy from them.
"We receive so many letters from Catholics that feel the writings of the early â€śchurch fathersâ€ť are a reliable source for what should be practiced in the church. Of course, my response is always the same, go back to the word of God and read what Jesus and His apostles said. This is the â€śmore sure foundationâ€ť that Peter told us we could trust! Nonetheless, they argue vehemently for their cause." excerpt from, [URL=http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/RC144.htm]]]http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/RC144.htm ( how reliable are Rome's Church Fathers?)[/URL]