A Discussion on
Was St. Augustine Catholic?

Between Scott Windsor and David King

On September 17, 2003 David King posted the following to the NTRMin discussion board, they call The Areopagus. Since Mr. King's response to me was rather large, it was not conducive for me to respond in the board, so I am taking the oportunity to respond here, and I welcome any/or of this response to be quoted back to the board by any who wish to respond further. So, here is what Mr. King posted:
Augustine (354-430): They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? For He had said to them, Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life. What shall we do? they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent. This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12.
To which I responded:
This same St. Augustine wrote:
Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental.
Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;-If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel (Ch 5 §6).

You might want to think twice before quoting this Catholic Saint again!


This reply ellicited a verbose response from Mr. King, so verbose that I felt my further response to him, to be fair, needed to be done offline, so I have prepared this webpage - which I am also copying to The Areopagus. I will put Mr. King's response in teal and my words will remain in black. So, without further ado, let's get to Mr. King's response. He opens by changing the subject from Was St. Augustine Catholic? to:

Yes, Augustine was Catholic, but not Roman Catholic

This truly becomes my task, to prove that not only was St. Augustine a Catholic, but indeed that he was as much a Catholic in the 4th century as I am in the 21st century. Now, I am not comparing the greatness of St. Augustine to my meager existence, but rather the fact that I submit to the authority of the Catholic Church and accept the teachings of the Catholic Church - that we both were/are faithful Catholics.

Hello Mr. Windsor,

I don’t know when I’ve seen a more obvious red herring tactic than your present one, which is a common modus operandi on the part of most Roman Catholic apologists. Rather than attempt to deal with the citation given from Augustine in this post, you have simply gone to the one quote that you think favors the ultimate authority of the Church, and I suppose (as you usually assume without proof) that Augustine was making reference to the communion of Rome, although when he spoke of the Catholic Church he meant the universal Catholic Church throughout the world.

Hello Mr. King,
The quote you presented from St. Augustine is not troublesome to Catholics, there was no need for me to "deal with it." Perhaps I should have been more clear and made that statement to begin with. Your quote was a good one, I just find it ironic that you (and others) like to quote from St. Augustine, who was faithful to the universal Catholic Church - as you correctly state, and also was in communion with Rome, a point you seem to be denying. You and I have been through this discussion before as well, with the roma locuta est, causa finita est discussion. After going round and round with you here, I prepared a complete response and posted it, informed you of it - and have still not seen a response to it. I could assume silence is concession, but I have not. Clearly, in that incident, St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, had turned to the Bishop of Rome - and after Rome had responded (sent rescripts), St. Augustine declared "causa finita est" (the case is closed). The error of Pelagius continued - but Rome had spoken, the case was closed.

The above being said, your accusation that I have introduced a red herring to this thread is a bit hillarious. To what argument do you believe my quote and statement is a red herring? Mr. King, with all due respect, you presented no argument, you presented a quote. In order for you to accuse me of presenting a red herring I would have to be answering an argument that you presented with something unrelated or only tangentially related. No Mr. King, you presented a quote, then I presented a quote, then I presented an argument. Before you accuse me of invalid argumentation (a red herring argument) you might want to be sure I am answering an argument first! To be a true red herring you would have to have presented an argument, and my argument would have to be a distraction from the original, (as the use of a real red herring brushed across a trail to confuse or distract hunting dogs from the real target they are hunting for).

One more thing here, to claim this is "the one quote that (I) think favors the ultimate authority of the Church..." is patently false. You and I have debated over roma locuta est, I have written several articles pointing the fallacies of sola scriptura, not to mention my entire website which is dedicated to defending the "ultimate authority of the Church." I would hope for (but am not expecting) you to retract this claim. The thought that my entire apologetics on authority is based solely in this "one quote" is not a true statement in the least - and quite laughable.

I can only surmise that what you are really trying to suggest is your own personal offense that a Protestant is quite comfortable citing Augustine, and agreeing with him in some matters without having to agree with him on everything. That is the burden of would be Roman Catholic apologists and not the Protestant. As you have been told many times before, and which you have yet to learn, we bear no such burden of conformity. Yet you folks can’t seem to make your way out of your own box of thinking in order to understand that reality. In spite of repeated exchanges, this manner of apologetic approach has yet to see any improvement from the folks in your camp. Moreover, it is quite obvious why you didn’t deal with the essence of what Augustine gave expression to in this quote, because his words To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. are obviously opposed to what you wished he had said, rather than what he did say. Hence, we have an example of your felt need to avoid his words that I cited, and then to appeal to another quote that you folks are convinced in your minds supports your apologetic agenda, which, even if it did support your contention, still begs the question as to the universal authority of the Roman communion. The various disputes of the African Church with Rome in the day of Augustine proves otherwise, as I’ve demonstrated twice (both times to you) on this board already.

Of course, you are referring to the roma locuta est, causa finita est discussion, in at least one of those incidents (I'm not sure what the other one is) and though you presented an argument regarding this, you never fully responded to the article I wrote that fully answered your claims.

It is also noted, one of your common approaches is to continually point to the method and/or the messenger, and not the message. You utilize this tactic repeatedly in my dealings with you, and you have not failed to do so in this response. This discussion need not be about your perception of my ability to learn anything, either you have an argument against what I said, or you don't. If you apologetics is truly a defense of your faith, then I humbly suggest you stop making it a personal attack on those who dare to contradict you.

Back to the point, were there disputes between the African Church and Rome? Yes, indeed there were, but in the end - unity/communion with Rome remained, (as we saw in the roma locuta est saga).

In contrast to the way you have often contended on this board betimes in the past, Mr. Windsor, why change the subject of the thread to some other citation, rather than dealing with Augustine’s words in the quote cited? I don’t have to conform to everything Augustine said, again that is your felt burden, rather than mine. The next time you complain about changing the subject of a thread, I suggest you remember your own double-standard revealed here.

Ah, the old double-standard attack. You presented a quote from St. Augustine, to which I merely presented another quote from the same person and asked, "Was St. Augustine Catholic?" It is quite common practice "on this board" to change subject headings to reflect the further nature of questions being asked, in fact you changed the subject that I posted to "Yes Augustine was Catholic, but not Roman Catholic." Your posting did not present an argument, it only presented a quote - you raised no subject, you presented a quote - and I presented another quote, then I started a discussion comparing the quotes. How that can be considered a double-standard is beyond me, and I believe beyond anyone who takes an objective look at this dialog.

Nevertheless, to show I don’t have to employ your own tactics, I am most pleased to deal with your red herring in this same thread.

The charge of red herring has already been dismissed, but as often as you repeat it, I'll remind the readers it has been dismissed.

You wrote...

Quote:
This same St. Augustine wrote:
Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental.
Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;-If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel (Ch 5 §6).

The fact is, I have dealt with this quote of Augustine against the contentions of Roman apologists elsewhere, and am most happy to address it here. I simply think it’s only pertinent to point out your previous complaints, and thus your double-standard, about changing the subject of a thread. It’s your penchant to complain that a new thread needs to be started in order to address other subjects. But obviously, you entertain one standard for yourself, and another for us.

I reiterate, you did not open a specific subject header in this. Your subject was "Ancient voice for the day #97." You presented no additional commentary nor argument, it was merely an "Ancient voice of the day" posting. There is no "double-standard" here for me to introduce, from the same "ancient voice" another quote - and then for ME to start a discussion regarding the person who initially made both statements. Methinks the pastor doth protest too much.

Now then, as you have suggested implicitly here, appeal is frequently made by Roman Catholic Apologists to that oft-repeated testimony of Augustine, and allege from the following passage that he (Augustine) made the Church the grounds of authority and certainty for believing the Gospel. He writes and asks Manichaeus:

Quote:
But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. See NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 5. Latin text: Si ergo invenires aliquem, qui Evangelio nondum credit, quid faceres dicenti tibi, Non credo? Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas. Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam vocant Fundamenti, Liber Unus, Caput V, PL 42:176.

When this was urged against the Reformers by Roman apologists in his day, Calvin set forth the context of Augustine’s statement and answers the argument in the following manner:

Oh, I see, you apparently have no answer on your own, so you turn to Calvin, you may feel that since Calvin has already answered, you don't need to, so we'll continue on and look at what Mr. Calvin had to say:

Quote:
Augustine is not, therefore, teaching that the faith of godly men is founded on the authority of the church; nor does he hold the view that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it. He is simply teaching that there would be no certainty of the gospel for unbelievers to win them to Christ if the consensus of the church did not impel them. And this he clearly confirms a little later, saying: When I praise what I believe, and laugh at what you believe, how do you think we are to judge, or what are we to do? Should we not forsake those who invite us to a knowledge of things certain and then bid us believe things uncertain? Must we follow those who invite us first to believe what we are not yet strong enough to see, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may become worthy to comprehend what we believe [Colossians 1:4-11, 23] with God himself, not men, now inwardly strengthening and illumining our mind? Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, p. 76f. (I.vii.3). See also Turretin’s discussion of this passage from Augustine, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 94f. (II.vi.26).

Now of course Mr. Calvin would desire to downplay what St. Augustine said, but he fails to do so. St. Augustine clearly states that HE would not believe the gospel itself, if not for the authority of the Catholic Church. The latter quote from St. Augustine does not decrease the magnatude of the former. Calvin is no more successful in this endeavor than Mr. King is.

In this latter passage of Augustine quoted by Calvin, the words of Augustine are rendered elsewhere as:

Quote:
You can find nothing better than to praise your own faith and ridicule mine. So, after having in my turn praised my belief and ridiculed yours, what result do you think we shall arrive at as regards our judgment and our conduct, but to part company with those who promise the knowledge of indubitable things, and then demand from us faith in doubtful things? while we shall follow those who invite us to begin with believing what we cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may come into a position to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself. NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14. Latin text: Nihil aliud elegisti, nisi laudare quod credis, et irridere quod credo. Cum igitur etiam ego vicissim laudavero quod credo, et quod credis irrisero; quid putas nobis esse judicandum, quidve faciendum, nisi ut eos relinquamus, qui nos invitant certa cognoscere, et postea imperant ut incerta credamus; et eos sequamur, qui nos invitant prius credere, quod nondum valemus intueri, ut ipsa fide valentiores facti, quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram illuminante atque firmante? Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam vocant Fundamenti, Liber Unus, Caput XIV, 42:183.

So, unless we are to assume that "God Himself" has nothing to do with His Church, then again this passage does not detract one iota from the former. Certainly the Holy Spirit is with His Church when the Church exercises her authority, as in the canonization of the Sacred Scriptures themselves. The Church clearly has this authority for Jesus Himself grants, first to Peter individually (Matthew 16:18), then to the Apostles collectively (Matthew 18:18), the authority to bind or loose whatsoever. Not satisfied, Mr. King goes on to quote another Protestant apologists errant response to another Catholic apologist's use of the same passage I used:

Such was the response of William Whitaker concerning Augustine to the Roman apologist Stapleton. See his A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, p. 321.
Further in this same Epistle (Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam vocant Fundamenti), Augustine goes on to emphasize how he came to rest his "position" on the "inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself!" which not only disproves the Roman contention concerning his earlier words in this treatise, but goes on to demonstrate that the testimonium interim Spiritus Sancti was not a novelty with the Reformers, but was a patristic principle given voice to by none other than Augustine himself. We see, then, that it is the Reformed position, rather than the Roman, that expresses the Augustinian perspective.

Mr. Whitaker's response here is essentially a repeat of what Mr. King has already presented from Calvin, but he goes on to comment on the testimonium interim Spiritu Sancti (testimony of the Holy Spirit), again, as if the Holy Spirit is not working within the Church when the Church speaks and/or teaches authoritatively. The contention of these Protestants is untenable.

Elsewhere in his Confessions, Augustine described essentially the same effect of God’s Truth on him inwardly:

Quote:
Let me hear and understand how in the beginning Thou didst make the heaven and the earth. Moses wrote this; he wrote and departed, -- passed hence from Thee to Thee. Nor now is he before me; for if he were I would hold him, and ask him, and would adjure him by Thee that he would open unto me these things, and I would lend the ears of my body to the sounds bursting forth from his mouth. And should he speak in the Hebrew tongue, in vain would it beat on my senses, nor would ought touch my mind; but if in Latin, I should know what he said. But whence should I know whether he said what was true? But if I knew this even, should I know it from him? Verily within me (Intus utique mihi), within in the chamber of my thought, Truth, neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin, nor barbarian, without the organs of voice and tongue, without the sound of syllables, would say, "He speaks the truth," and I, forthwith assured of it, confidently (et ego statim certus confidenter) would say unto that man of Thine, "Thou speakest the truth." As, then, I cannot inquire of him, I beseech Thee, -- Thee, O Truth, full of whom he spake truth, -- Thee, my God, I beseech, forgive my sins; and do Thou, who didst give to that Thy servant to speak these things, grant to me also to understand them. NPNF1: Vol. I, The Confessions of St. Augustine, Book XI, Chapter 3. Latin text: Audiam et intelligam quomodo in principio fecisti coelum et terram (Gen. 1:4). Scripsit hoc Moyses, scripsit et abiit, transivit hinc a te ad te; neque nunc ante me est. Nam si esset, tenerem eum, et rogarem eum, et per te obsecrarem ut mihi ista panderet; et praeberem aures corporis mei sonis erumpentibus ex ore ejus. Et si hebraea voce loqueretur, frustra pulsaret sensum meum, nec inde mentem meam quidquam tangeret; si autem latine, scirem quid diceret. Sed unde scirem an verum diceret? Quod si et hoc scirem, num ab illo scirem? Intus utique mihi, intus in domicilio cogitationis, nec hebraea, nec graeca, nec latina, nec barbara veritas, sine oris et linguae organis, sine strepitu syllabarum diceret, Verum dicit: et ego statim certus confidenter illi homini tuo dicerem, Verum dicis. Cum ergo illum interrogare non possim, te, quo plenus vera dixit, Veritas, rogo te, Deus meus, rogo parce peccatis meis; et qui illi servo tuo dedisti haec dicere, da et mihi haec intelligere. Confessionum, liber XI, Caput III, PL 32:811.

Nowhere in this section do we see St. Augustine negating the statement of not believing the gospel itself except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. He's not even talking about the Gospel here. Over a writing of Moses, he would be able to consider it in the chamber of his heart and "without the sound of syllables, would say, "He speaks truth..." Do we detect a bit of a "red herring" here? St. Augustine speaks of a hypothetical writing of Moses and determines he could determine if it were true or not from within himself - and through the guidance of God. This is not a statement of whether or not he'd believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and rose again conquering death in our behalf that we might live eternally in heaven with Him - that's the Gospel message that he would not believe, except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. This out of context statement about a hypothetical writing of Moses cannot be put on the same level as not accepting the Gospel.

And again, in his work on The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins (written around the year 411 A.D.), Augustine expressed his mature thoughts in this manner:

Quote:
That statement, therefore, which occurs in the gospel, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world," has this meaning, that no man is illuminated except with that Light of the truth, which is God; so that no person must think that he is enlightened by him whom he listens to as a learner, although that instructor happen to be -- I will not say, any great man -- but even an angel himself. For the word of truth is applied to man externally by the ministry of a bodily voice, but yet "neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." Man indeed hears the speaker, be he man or angel, but in order that he may perceive and know that what is said is true, his mind is internally besprinkled with that light which remains for ever (sed ut sentiat et cognoscat verum esse quod dicitur, illo lumine intus mens ejus aspergitur, quod aeternum manet), and which shines even in darkness. But just as the sun is not seen by the blind, though they are clothed as it were with its rays, so is the light of truth not understood by the darkness of folly. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Chapter 37. Latin text: Itaque illud quod in Evangelio positum est. Erat lumen verum, quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, ideo dictum est, quia nullus hominum illuminatur nisi illo lumine veritatis, quod Deus est: ne quisquam putaret ab eo se illuminari, a quo audit ut discat, non dico, si quemquam magnum hominem, sed nec si angelum ei contingat habere doctorem. Adhibetur enim sermo veritatis extrinsecus vocis ministerio corporalis, verumtamen neque qui plantat est aliquid, neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus (1 Cor. 3:7). Audit quippe homo dicentem vel hominem vel angelum; sed ut sentiat et cognoscat verum esse quod dicitur, illo lumine intus mens ejus aspergitur, quod aeternum manet, quod etiam in tenebris lucet. Sed sicut sol iste a caecis, quamvis eos suis radiis quodam modo vestiat, sic ab stultitiae tenebris non comprehenditur. De Peccatorium Meritis et Remissione, Liber Primus, Caput XXXVIII, PL 44:130.

From that same document which Mr. King sites, we find St. Augustine saying:

This, however, the rule of the Church does not indicate, for it joins baptized infants to the number of the faithful. (St. Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Ch. 28).

[Refering to the Church, apostolic tradition AND Scripture...] The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than "salvation," and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than "life." Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. (ibid. Ch. 34).

And that this takes place in the case of infants, through the sacrament of baptism, is not doubted by mother Church, which uses for them the heart and mouth of a mother, that they may be imbued with the sacred mysteries, seeing that they cannot as yet with their own heart "believe unto righteousness," nor with their own mouth make "confession unto salvation. (ibid. Ch. 38).

There's so many more, but let me stop for now with this "clincher" from this document that deals specifically with the authority of the Church as handed down from Jesus through His Apostles. Granted, this discussion is on Infant Baptism, not the Gospel which was the initial impetus for this current discussion, but again it must be noted that Mr. King directed us to this particular document that is on the subject of Infant Baptism.
Now, seeing that they admit the necessity of baptizing infants,-finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,-they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. (ibid. Ch. 39).

You see, Mr. Windsor, Augustine could not have expressed himself clearer; his epistemology regarding spiritual truth is rooted in the immediate and eternal influence of the light that only God can give.

You see, Mr. King, if you read more of On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, you'll find that your conclusions are denied. By the way, Mr. King, if I am not mistaken, does not your community reject the Baptism of Infants?

Even Ambrose (339-397), in addressing the Arian heretics, scolds them saying, "Judge not, Arian, divine things by human, but believe the divine where thou findest not the human." (NPNF2: Vol.: Volume X, Of the Christian Faith, Book I, Chapter 13, §79. Latin text: Noli, Ariane, ex nostris aestimare divina: sed divina crede, ubi humana non invenis. De Fide Ad Gratianum, Liber Primus, Caput XIII, §79, PL 16:547). Yet, it is the practice of modern-day Roman apologists to ridicule the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in confirming the hearts of believers, or to pretend that it was a novel concept initiated by the Reformers.

Oh, were we discussing St. Ambrose? Silly me, I thought we were discussing St. Augustine!

Indeed, we acknowledge enthusiastically with Augustine that the Church is most often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ.

And we Catholics do not deny, enthusiastically or otherwise, that. We also enthusiastically acknowledge, with St. Augustine, that the Church indeed has authority to teach us the Gospel (among other things!).

As medieval scholar Heiko Oberman explained with respect to this passage from Augustine, Augustine never exalted the authority of the Church over the Scriptures.

Quote:
"While repeatedly asserting the primacy of Scripture, Augustine himself does not contrast this at all with the authority of the Catholic Church [as Roman apologists assert]: ‘... I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.’ The Church has a practical priority; her authority as expressed in the direction-giving meaning of commovere, to move, is an instrumental authority, the door which leads to the fulness of the Word itself." See Heiko Oberman, "Quo Vadis? Tradition from Irenaeus to Humani Generis" in the Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 16, 1963, pp. 234-235. Commenting on Augustine’s view, Louis Berkhof wrote: (")It is true that he also attached great value to the testimony of the Church as a motivum credibilitatis, but he did not regard this as the last and deepest ground of faith." See his Introduction to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), p. 183.

I have no problem with Oberman's statement - then in the same block quote you insert a commentary by Louis Berkof? A "Reformed Theologian?" Come now Mr. King. Am I supposed to accept his commentary on this? I don't think so.

Scripture itself furnishes us with clear illustration of this in the fourth chapter of John’s gospel. After having dealings with Christ, the woman of Samaria returns to her city, and there bears witness to Christ. John 4:39-42:

Quote:
39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, "He told me all that I ever did."
40 So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days.
41 And many more believed because of His own word.
42 Then they said to the woman, "Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world."

We see, then, that though it was the woman’s witness which intially induced belief in Christ (as did the catholic Church for Augustine in his day), nonetheless, the confirmation of their faith came to rest in the testimony of Christ’s own word. While the woman’s witness was true and sufficiently credible to move the inhabitants of the city (as was the Catholic Church for Augustine), it does not follow that she (that woman) then became the infallible bulwark of their subsequent faith. No, they came to rest, not in her word, but in Christ’s.

And the woman is not the Church, so Mr. King, this analogy really doesn't work.

Answering the same argument as proposed by the Roman apologist Stapleton, William Whitaker replied, saying,

Quote:
"The church does indeed deliver that rule [i.e. the Scriptures], not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher, and a minister." See his A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, p. 288.

And again, Mr. King - first off, what other Protestant apologists have to say on this matter is not really relavent to what St. Augustine said. Now, that being said, what Whitaker says here does not detract from the Church's authority that both St. Augustine and I adhere to.

Furthermore, Oberman further observed...
"The moving authority of the Church becomes in late medieval versions the Church’s approval or creation of Holy Scripture.” He notes that “the lonely voice of the fourteenth-century Augustinian Gregory of Rimini (d. 1358), protesting that Augustine meant merely a practical priority of the Church over Scripture, went unheard.” (See See Heiko Oberman, “Quo Vadis? Tradition from Irenaeus to Humani Generis” in the Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 16, 1963, p. 235.)

After all, what Christian would dispute that the Church has been granted divine authority under God to proclaim the Gospel of Christ as he is freely offered in Holy Scripture (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8)? But Calvin’s emphasis on the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, as the means by which believers come to recognize and embrace the divine authority of the inscripturated Gospel, was shared by Augustine, who likewise taught that believers “come into a position to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself.”/b] Elsewhere Augus declares, “It is lawful for pure minds to know the eternal law of God, but not lawful to judge it.” (Latin t Aeternam igitur legem mundis animis fas est cognoscere, judicare non fas est. De Vera Religione, Caput XXXI, PL 34:148.

Faith comes, not by the Church as the origin of faith, but by hearing the word of God which comes from the Holy Spirit (Rom. 10:17). Thus The Apostle Paul explained concerning the faith of the Thessalonians: “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). He had occasion to remind the Corinthians that his speech and his preaching “were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:4-5). We would have no way of knowing the existence any of these citations today apart from Holy Scripture as our divine informant.

It is often the contention of Roman apologists that the Church should be believed because it is more ancient than and preceded the Scriptures, indeed that the Church is the ‘principle of causality’ behind the Scriptures. But as noted earlier, God is (according to 2 Tim. 3:16) the primary author or originator of sacred Scripture (auctor primarius Scriptura sacrae), and as such, he himself is the ‘principle of causality’ behind Holy Scripture. Moreover, the testimony of Scripture according to the Apostle Peter is that Scripture originated, not with the Church, but that “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). And so affirmed Augustine: “This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.” (NPNF1: Vol. II, The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 3.)

It is sheer nonsense to urge that the Church’s authority is to be believed as the confirmation of one’s faith because it is more ancient, or existed prior to the inscripturation of God’s word, or that it was the ‘principle of causality.’ Scripture declares that God’s word is eternal (Psalm 119:89). Therefore, we confess with Whitaker . . .

Quote:
...that there was a time when the word of God was not written, and that the Church existed then: but it does not, therefore, follow that the church was more ancient than the word. For the doctrine was the same when not written, as it is now when it is written; and that was more ancient than all churches. For the word of God is the seed of the Church. Now the seed is always more ancient than the progeny of which it is the seed. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, pp. 331-332. One should bear in mind here the explicit testimony of Irenaeus as well, viz. that what the apostles preached, they wrote. See ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 3:1:1.

Moreover, we find in his controversy with the Donatists, that Augustine said that “We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and words, and visions of men.” (For translation, see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., Vol. II, p. 341. Augustine’s Latin text: quam [i.e., Ecclesiam] sicut ipsum caput in Scripturis sanctis canonicis debemus agnoscere, non in variis hominum rumoribus, et opinionibus, et factis, et dictis, et visis inquirere. De Unitate Ecclesiae, PL 43:429).
Then Augustine goes on to explain further in the same work, that the Donatists must prove their Church by the Scriptures, and invokes the need for them, to imitate the example of the Bereans of Acts 17:11.
Quote:
Whether they [i.e. the Donatists] hold the Church, they must show by the Canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone; for we do not say, that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the Councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world in the holy places which those of our communion frequent such wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen . . . Whatever things of this kind take place in the Catholic Church, are therefore to be approved of because they take place in the Catholic Church; but it is not proved to be the Catholic Church, because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself when he had risen from the dead . . . judged that his disciples were to be convinced by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms . . . These are the proofs, these the foundations, these the supports for our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some who believed, that they searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so (Acts 17:11). What Scriptures but the Canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To these have been added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John. See Goode’s translation, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 341-342. Augustine’s latin text: Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant: quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus, commendavit Milevitanus Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius, vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis episcopi; aut quia nostrorum collegarum conciliis ipsa praedicata est; aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis, quae frequentat nostra communio, tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum, vel sanitatum fiunt,... Quaecumque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda, quia in Catholica fiunt; non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt. Ipse Dominus Jesus cum resurrexisset a mortuis,...eos [i.e., discipulos] testimoniis Legis et Prophetarum et Psalmorum confirmandos esse judicavit,...Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, haec fundamenta, haec firmamenta. 51. Legimus in Actibus Apostolorum dictum de quibusdam credentibus, quod quotidie scrutarentur Scripturas, an haec ita se haberent (Act. XVII, 11): quas utique Scripturas, nisi canonicas Legis et Prophetarum? Huc accesserunt Evangelia, apostolicae Epistolae, Actus Apostolorum, Apocalypsis Joannis. De Unitate Ecclesiae, PL 43:429-430.

You see, Mr. Windsor, if Augustine really shared your view of the authority of the church over Scripture, he would not have argued with the Donatists to show their church from the Scripture. He would have assumed your posture, and simply urged the prior authority of the Church. But the fact is, he didn’t. And if ever he had an opportunity to argue like yourself, then here would surely have been the place for him to do so. I’m not the one who needs to think twice, but thanks for sharing.

You wrote: You might want to think twice before quoting this Catholic Saint again!

Not at all, Mr. Windsor, and you know perfectly well that I have given Augustine and his writings much thought, far more than yourself. In fact, so much so, that I’m not the one who needs lessons in history to identify certain basic facts to which Augustine made reference, which you had to be shown because you had not done your homework enough to know before you took the apologetic leap. As I said repeatedly above, Mr. Windsor, we as Protestants do not live in the same box as apologists of the Roman communion who are terrified of an ancient Church Father being quoted in contradiction to their present day agenda. I was and am delighted to quote Augustine, and I was able to do so on this occasion without the limitations you folks bear while trying to impose upon us. If I had to think twice about it, I wouldn’t have quoted Augustine at all. In fact, you might want to spend some time rehabilitating your argument, and actually study to improve it, rather than simply dropping the same worn out sort of claims that you've never even tried to address in the context of meaningful objections against it.

Cheers,
DTK