I have great respect for those people who can argue the minutiae of the Bible. I’m not one of them. I guess I’m pretty much the Cliff Notes kind of Christian. But I can’t help being impressed by those folks who have delved so deeply into the Bible that they are able to discuss even the tiniest bits of the Bible with great intelligence, insight, and scholarship. Sigh … I’ll never be one of them.
On the other hand (you knew that was coming), sometimes it seems hopelessly ridiculous to me. Like, somewhere along the line, those great minds have missed the point or aren’t seeing the forest for the trees.
At one time, I was doing some light research for a piece I wanted to write and wandered the internet to see what I would find. It can be quite a journey, following links. It can lead to brightness or deep, dark places. But mostly, depending on the traveler, there’s a lot of brightness to be found and I discovered a deep conversation and discussion and debate about this sentence: Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. The big debate was about … the comma!
Now, I get it; two different things are at work depending on where the comma is. If one reads the verse, as shown above, Jesus is saying on that particular day the thief will be with Him in paradise. However, if the comma before ‘today’ is supposed to go after the word ‘today’, that means that on that particular day, Jesus is telling the thief that at some time in the future he will be with Jesus in heaven. The discussion included mention that the original texts don’t have punctuation and so the translators decided how the statement should read.
I’m laughing at the memory; I spent a lot of time that day, following the debate, following the thought processes of these detail oriented people. And then it occurred to me – what difference does it make if the thief goes today or some day in the future? The important message is – the thief was going to be in paradise with Jesus! He recognized Jesus’ kingship and Jesus welcomed him. Isn’t that why the story is important? So that folks know even those who have committed crimes, done bad things, can come to know Jesus, follow Him, and hope for heaven?
Jots and tittles. I’m a ‘big picture’ kind of girl.
All Along the Watchtower 
Getting the big picture matters, Audre, so thank you for the reminder. Sometimes we can miss the tree for examining the leaves.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have study Bibles (three of them!) if I, or someone I know, have a deeper question. But honestly, I lean on the verse that says that childlike faith pleases God, lol!
LikeLiked by 2 people
A good motto, Audre.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As someone who does examine the minutiae, I would say that it can be productive at times. It depends on what you’re going through, but I have found that my worldview has become more stable as a consequence of taking the time to sort some issues out. This has been beneficial for my mental health.
LikeLike
I appreciate that, Nicholas; especially in these times. While I don’t have the capacity for remembering, or always understanding the minutiae, just doing the light kind of research I do gives me comfort. Focusing on the Word or searching for verses or trying to find a commentary, shuts out all the noise around us. I find that without even realizing it, I’ve calmed down, my spirit is lighter, and my sense of hope returns.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it is also important for building an enduring faith: we are able to commune better with God when we have a clearer sense of who He is, what His values are, etc. Too many people have walked away from Christianity because they were given teachings that could not withstand adverse, reasoned evidence and/or because they were not moved on from the “milk” to the “meat”. My heart goes out to all the fundamentalists who, when overcome by the evidence for evolution etc finally said enough was enough and walked away. That is a tragedy and blame for it lies with the Church as a whole, not just the individual pastors who were entrusted with the care of their souls. We can do harm by both action and omission, by both control and negligence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excellent observation, Nicholas. Quite a few years ago, I – I don’t want to use the word ‘followed’, because I didn’t – but I ‘watched with regularity’ certain preachers on tv. At first I enjoyed their discourse and they seemed to have valid insights. But after awhile it occurred to me – anyone watching this with any regularity at all is only getting one man’s interpretation of the Bible. If folks haven’t read the Bible for themselves, haven’t done some independent study, these preachers could be selling them a bill of goods and they’d never know. I don’t watch any of that anymore.
Nothing can take the place of reading the Bible for yourself, working through the hard bits with all the resources we have available today. It is perilous to let someone else do the ‘heavy lifting’ for us. We must read, we must study, we must pray, we must meditate and ‘ponder in our hearts’; it’s a big part of the Christian’s journey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely agree. You and I are very fortunate that we have the discipline, resources, and time to do this. Hopefully an increase in this Berean attitude will be a product of this lockdown – “for God works all things for good for those who love Him.” Here’s hoping the Church that emerges from lockdown is one with increased discipline, sobriety, and unity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen, Nicholas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If, as the Church has historically believed, Jesus descended to hell until the Resurrection then that does raise the theological question of how the thief could be with Him in Paradise ‘today.’ To which the best answer i have seen was that the thief was going to be with Jesus, and wherever Jesus is Paradise is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s a lot of unpacking of Hades/Tartarus/Gehenna/Sheol/Lake of Fire, which I will not get into here, but I think “descended into hell” is not a particularly helpful phrase for in-depth discussions of that topic, but I understand the historical reasons for including it in the Creed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JOHN CHAPTER 9: 2-4
The character of God can be seriously maligned by some poor punctuation and particularly by a few added words of biased translators.
The opening verses od John 9 present us with Jesus answer to the disciple’s question and calls for a classic punctuation decision is.
“And his disciples asked him, Rabbi who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind.” John 9:2.
Should the answer be A) or B)?
Answer A) Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him (3). I must work the works of him who sent me while it is day … (4)” John 9:3-4 (NKJV)
Answer B) The NKJV provides an accurate translation of the Greek words; if we just change the punctuation we have an alternate and definite meaning.
Jesus answered,
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned.
But that the works of God should be revealed in him I must work the works of him who sent me while it is day … (3-4)” John 9:3-4 (NKJV with alternate punctuation)
What do we think of answer c)?
Answer C) The NIV adds words to give a determinist / Calvinistic meaning.
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life (3). As long as it is day we must do the work of him who sent me … (4)” John 9:3-4 NIV
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am very uncomfortable with an interpretation that suggests God made this man blind so that Jesus could heal him.
LikeLike
Nicholas – check out Ivan Karamazov. “It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket.” He gives examples of real evil to substantiate this. For him it would be irrelevant whether God made the man blind or simply allowed the man to be born blind (when He could have done something about it).
LikeLike
Yes, theodicy is a large subject.
LikeLike
Rob – I confess I’m having difficulties seeing much of a difference between the three translations – and, for this reason, I consider that this example actually supports rather than undermines the thesis of Audre – that we can get too bogged down in minutiae. For me, the basic message is the same.
LikeLike
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned.” When the period is placed at this point Jesus answer to the cause of the man’s blindness is complete. Rather than in the case of the usual punctuation and sometimes additional words that indicate God made the man blind specifically in order to demonstrate his healing.
LikeLike
…. well, the NIV says, ‘this happened so that ….’ and doesn’t say that God made the man blind so that …. .
The NIV is the one that I read – not through any Calvinistic bias (I don’t consider myself a Calvinist – I certainly have no time for the person of John Calvin – and as Moltmann points out, his purely functionary view of the second person of the Trinity is clearly wrong). I simply find the grammar easier on the eye. I usually read through the bible once a year. One year I tried the KJV, but it just got on my nerves and I have no intention of repeating the experience.
There may be one or two things in it that are less than optimal, but they have been able to formulate it in a way that makes it readable English.
LikeLike
I certainly do hold to ‘KJ only’ – I simply chose it on this occasion as it adds no words to these verses not found in the original manuscript. I usually use the NASB.
LikeLike
Rob – yes, but – the point is that the NIV does not say that God caused the blindness – it stops short of this and, in fact, what it does say is entirely consistent with the way we understand bad-things-happening from the book of Job. Satan is the one who inflicts the bad things – and God gives him room to do it in order that His glory may shine through.
Perhaps they could have given something with a little bit more accuracy by placing the full stop earlier and expressing the phrase that follows slightly differently – but people who take the false message (the one that you object to because it is determinist / Calvinist) are likely to read in that which is not there and draw the message they want even if the translation is absolutely rigorous (if not at this verse then they’ll find another one).
So (a) I didn’t take the message that you object to when I read this verse from the NIV, (b) I think you would have to be looking for it anyway in order to take it and hence (c) I don’t intend to junk the NIV because of this.
So I’m with Audre on the `jot and tittle’ issue and I don’t think that you have given a counter-example.
But while I’m critical of the example, I do think that behind it you have a very good point about the root cause and propagation of evil and I’d also say that the heresy that you’re warning us against ultimately comes from a `unitarian’ understanding of God which misses essential aspects of the Trinity.
LikeLike
Jock, While I agree that I was careless in saying the NIV actually stated God caused the blindness, I do not agree that the NIV is not implying that his blindness was caused for the purpose of manifesting the healing.
I think the addition of the words in the text that are not in the original is outrageous.
The NASB more explicitly states that the purpose of the man being born blind was for his healing to take place.
“Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents, but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” John 9:3 NASB.
This thought is not in the original text and I think it represents the deterministic bias of translators.
LikeLike
Rob – but you do make a good point about the translation and the problems.
Here – I just looked up the `bible gateway’ web site which gives me the option of clicking on several buttons to get the different translations.
You may well be correct about the underlying Greek (I don’t read Greek myself), but the KJV doesn’t have a full-stop. There is a colon which connects the ideas and the sentence is finished at the end of the connecting idea
` …… nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.’
The full stop comes after `him’. In the KJV, the blindness is clearly in order that the works of God should be made manifest. That is how the translators wanted us to understand this.
They all seem to be the same. I found it interesting that they also had up the JB Phillips translation, which says,
‘ “He was not born blind because of his own sin or that of his parents,” returned Jesus, “but to show the power of God at work in him.’
The NKJV again has a comma followed by the `but’ and says
` “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.’
Clearly in the NKJV, it has been worded so that the reader understands that the ultimate purpose of the blindness is so that God’s work should be revealed in him.
So I’m kind-of not getting it here. I don’t read Greek myself. I’d say Yes – if indeed a new thought has been added, then this is outrageous. But every single translation seems to have exactly the same `new thought’ in one way or another.
But this new thought (obtained by changing the position of the end of the sentence – I trust your Greek here and your assessment that they actually did this) does (in my opinion) seem to chime in with the rest of Scripture and (for example) the propagation of evil described in the book of Job. Agreed – it shouldn’t be there in this passage if it isn’t in the original, but all the translators seem to have it in one way or another.
LikeLike
Yes, Jock if you look back at my first statement on this you will see that the I gave the NKJV both as A) it is in the text and that I suggested B) alternate punctuation to give what I considered a better sense of the meaning, and asked Should the answer be A) or B)? to find other’s opinion on this.
It really does depend on the way the sentence is punctuated and it may be punctuated, either way, leaving some doubt about the intended meaning. Therefore, our interpretation will be guided by how we see the text harmonising with the rest of scripture and the Character of God.
What is unacceptable is for a translator to add words, not in the original or to phrase the text so as to eliminate all ambiguity.
Searching through translation you will find that the trend, is to eliminate ambiguity in one direction in order to indicate that the blindness was caused for the purpose of the healing.
LikeLike
Rob – as you say, theodicy is an important topic. You’re trying to make a point which is a good one – even though I’m not entirely sure that picking on the translators of John 9 is such a good way of doing it.
I see that you’re listed as one of the authors for this blog – if you could convey your thoughts in a blog post (Chalcedon willing, of course), I for one would be interested in reading it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In curious though how you’d explain natural evils. In the most basic sense, God has to have something to do with them in the very least permissively. In my view, as we’ve discussed Original Sin, as the deprivation of the good, I can still place the causation on man. I don’t know if you can do the same with your difficulty with the concept of Original Sin. So, why does God permit such things? There’s goods that exist in a world that is fallen that wouldn’t exist in a perfect world like charity (in the assisting sense), empathy, et al. In my opinion, The Catholic tradition makes the most sense in its theology of redemptive suffering. In a framework of “it is finished.” It’s more difficult to see the compatibility of natural evil with that statement in many non-Catholic theologies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I think we want to draw a distinction between permission and direct causation. To be honest, some times I’m not sure…although an intellectual, I am much more dependant on faith than explanation in surviving as a Christian on this topic.
LikeLike
I think we have to be careful in using the word ‘permission’ it can imply authorisation. I believe that what God authorises is freedom of human choice, not sinful choices.
LikeLike
The sovereignty of God is definitely s difficult topic. Some of the trickiest passages concerning it are in Romans and Revelation. I’m not a Calvinist, but I do believe God is sovereign – I’m just not sure I fully understand what that means.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicholas – could you accompany your statement `I am not a Calvinist’ with a brief description of what Calvinism actually is (so that I know what you are not)?
I’m having difficulties with labels. I used to know what various labels meant, but then I kept discovering counter-examples – so now I don’t know what people mean when they describe themselves as `Calvinist’ or `not a Calvinist’ or `Evangelical’ or `Baptist’ or, indeed, just about anything else.
I most definitely don’t know what a `Lutheran’ is supposed to be. I’d read some of Luther and thought I understood it, but then I spent time in Sweden where the state church was supposed to be `Lutheran’ and I discovered that the adjective `Lutheran’ had absolutely nothing to do with anything that was ever in the head of Mr Martin Luther. The whirring noise you hear has nothing to do with the cooling system of your computer; it is Martin Luther spinning in his grave.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What I mean is I do not understand salvation in the TULIP manner that many people who call themselves Reformed use, which is said to be derived from the teachings of Calvin – e.g. at http://www.prca.org
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas – Ah ha – thanks.
OK – once upon a time, a long time ago, I heard the TULIP summary, but I had forgotten about it. If that is the definition of Calvinism, then I personally am not a Calvinist.
I’m not sure if this is a fair summary of John Calvin. I read his Institutes, quite liked quite a lot of it, but when I later heard Calvin summarised by TULIP, it didn’t seem to correspond to what I had read.
I clicked on the link you gave – another organisation with another web page – which (again) leaves me feeling relieved that I dissociated myself from churches approximately 18 years ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not find the sovereignty of God at all a difficult concept. I think the difficulty is only created by unique Calvinistic word meanings that interpret God’s sovereignty as meticulous control.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob – well, either God is sovereign, or else God is not sovereign.
Could you explain what non-Calvinistic meaning you have?
Actually – I’d find it very helpful if you could write a whole post about your motivation for bringing up the John 9 translation. (I mean the motivational considerations). I suspect that Nicholas would also find this of great interest – so you wouldn’t be wasting your time.
(By motivational considerations I do mean evangelisation and the difficulties encountered by false doctrines of a `Calvinistic’ nature).
LikeLike
I try to remember that God is love.
LikeLike
And that’s an honest answer. I get it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
the thief on the cross didnt study the bible. something is wrong. here is the standard religious line on salvation;
that it contains everything we need to know in order to attain salvation.
reading and knowing is what brings on salvation, according to some religious something or another. the unsaved dream up various ways of getting saved…a word they have seen jesus use but have no idea what it is.
well, if the thief didnt need to study his way to heaven, you dont either. the thief turned to jesus and said that be believed. that was all that is needed.
LikeLike
Jock, I left this site to spend my time debating atheists and Muslims. My son in the UK took up an interest in debating Islamists. He frequently does so at ‘Speakers Corner in Hyde Park. London’. The last time I was in the UK I joined him there and unfortunately managed to get myself filmed by a radical Islamist.
In my debates online with atheists, I found that a number had formerly been Christians brought up in a Calvinists persuasion. Also, in the past, a friend’s wife had become seriously ill over concerns that she was not one of the elect. So, I headed off to a few sites debating Calvinists to sort of, try to, head off some Cristian train wrecks.
So, my comments on John 9 come out of that recent area of concerns.
I have been thinking of writing some here on Augustine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah – that makes sense – because without this context, the critique of the translations of John 9 seemed to come out of nowhere. Now you have put it into context and it makes sense.
As I see it, the designation `Calvinist’ covers an awful lot – and it doesn’t necessarily simply apply to people who have read Calvin’s Institutes and find that they like much of the content – the term (a) has a wider meaning and (b) a lot of these `Calvinists’ have never read the Institutes (so they’re `Calvinists’ without actually knowing what Calvin stood for).
I find it a bit weird to become seriously ill over concerns that one is or is not part of the elect.
We (as Christians) should be more involved in outreach, so I strongly appreciate what you are doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob – I’m wondering what exactly you mean by `Calvinist’. Because the falling away you describe is exactly the same as what happened with my mother’s sister. Basically – their father came to faith through the Salvation Army and sent his daughters to the village Salvation Army Sunday school.
I don’t think that anyone can accuse the Salvation Army of being `Calvinist’, but there was something strict and rigorous and awful about the way he brought them up (of course, he was a good man and he believed he was doing his best for them). My own mother doesn’t seem to have been too bothered by the extremely strict Sundays, but the whole business seems to have put my aunt right off religion for life.
I don’t see myself as a `Calvinist’ (although other people might). I do consider that I am `saved’, I am in the number of the Saviour’s family and that I will see the heavenly kingdom when I move from this life to the next.
From what you wrote, I think the basic problem (particularly of the woman who became seriously ill because she was so worried about whether she belonged to `the elect’ or not) is some twisted idea taken to extremes – probably in a situation where (Calvinist, Salvation Army or anything else you care to mention) the love of God isn’t very much in evidence and a rigorous set of rules and regulations (in my aunt’s case the particularly oppressive Sundays) is of prime importance.
As far as Salvation is concerned, I believe that everybody who wants it sees life. By this, I mean anyone who, when they finally understand what it is all about, welcomes it. God (of course) isn’t interested in people who are luke-warm about the heavenly kingdom and whose only interest is to flee from the torment of the other place (as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus).
So at a rough educated guess I’d say that the woman whom you mentioned was coming from an oppressive situation – which can arise anywhere.
On a completely different topic – I’d like to know how you are presenting the Christian faith when you are in discussion with Muslims. What is the key point that you bring out when communicating what the Christian faith is all about that is absent in the Muslim creed?
LikeLike
There can be many approaches to a conversation with Muslims. If you have no experience its best to start by getting some training or by asking them questions and learning from them. One of the things I would talk about would be the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as a victory over sin and death-bringing us liberation and displaying the deeply personal love of God. On this issue, we have a historical advantage over the Islamic narrative. I did some training many years ago with a missionary in London – a guy called Jay Smith a Muslim polemicist. The link is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EaopH_EPfc (skip to time stamp 28:00)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob – thanks – it looks quite promising.
At the same time, I’ve just finished reading Moltmann’s `The Crucified God’ which also has good ideas. Some of it does apply to Islam (which he mentioned explicitly). The Muslim faith is unitarian and, when the Muslims first took over Christian churches (eg Hagia Sophia) they wrote at the entrance `God is not begotten; God does not beget’ (or something like that. To trivialise it in order to get a simple take-home message: 1) a God who can love is necessarily a God who can suffer. 2) This necessitates the Trinity (he describes the suffering of the Son *together* with the grief of the father and the Holy Spirit playing a role that I didn’t fully understand). This, in a nutshell, gives the dimension that Christianity has, with a God of love in a real and meaningful sense, which the Muslim religion cannot have. (Incidentally, he trashes Aquinas, with his Aristotelian `unmoved mover’ as being in essence unitarian)
Before listening to Jay Smith, I’m a bit worried about the pre-amble which talks of `research …. undoing Islam’s historical credibility’. I’m not sure that the faith of a Muslim is based on historical considerations and hence I’m not sure how proving that the historical narrative is wrong will do much good. After all, Chalcedon’s discussion of the historical perspective doesn’t seem to change peoples minds when it comes to Christianity (although they are better informed and hold their views at a higher level).
I think it’s promising – I’ll check it out and get back to you.
LikeLike
Jay receives reports from Muslims who have converted to Christ as a result of these teaching videos. If you’re interested in this area it’s worth following up on what he produces. He is a fearless guy and fro 30 or more years in London debated radical Islamists (Which are his main interest) every Sunday at ‘Speakers Corner”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob – I’m most definitely interested in this. This, after all, is the mission.
LikeLike
Jay’s approach to Islam is to subject it to the same rigorous criticism that Christian evidence has survived. He hopes to see an increasing collapse of Islam as a result.
There has been a lot of work going on by secular scholars due to concerns over Islam in the west. Jay says he is aware of some of this is so damaging to Islam that it will not be published until the researcher has died. Google “In the Shadow of the Sword” It was written by a secular historian Tom Holland a couple of yrs ago, and a BBC TV documentary see links. It was through Jay’s encouragement that he Tom researched and wrote it.
See both video links on the origins of the Quran of which there are 23 versions at least – not one as claimed by Muslims 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nBO6ja0_RU 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fro5l-Vekd8
Dan Gibson The Sacred City Qiblas Directions is very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOnGvzVceVo&feature=youtu.be
Tom Holland – BBC The Untold Story (Origins of Islam): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9S_xbjIRgE
Tom Holland – The Origins of Islam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDQh2nk8ih4
LikeLike
I have written much on the topic of Augustine. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Augustine wrote a lot and his writings developed as he seemed to use his writing as a form of thinking out the question. In fact, he professed with Ambrose that Catechumens that died before baptism were saved by desire. Howevef , On Nature and Gracd , He seems to indicate that is for a strict water baptism. And, of course is his Retractions…
It gives.one pause to ever write anything down. You might have changed your mind, only for the next 1000 years people saying this is the view of Rob!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Augustine is not my favourite character from church history. I believe he wrote over 400 works and am told there are only 6 known scholars in the world that have read all his works. Augustine said that if he was to be understood then his works should be read in the chronological order in which he wrote them.
Dr Ken Wilson a surgeon and theologian from the USA took a sabbatical and completed his PhD at Oxford University and is the only person know to have followed Augustine’s advice and read all his works in chronological order. I am currently reading through his actual thesis, but an abbreviated version has been published and is available at Amazon.
Wilson discovered that Augustine reverted to his pre-Christian deterministic beliefs in 410 AD while in heated debate and confrontation with Pelagius, so doing overturning the unanimous teaching of the early church, rather than reverting to this position some 15 years earlier as is generally thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s definitely a change in Augustine during the Pelagian period. I don’t know the specifics since it is so fast, as we’ve both elluded to in the breadth of work. In fact, I do think his positions in On Nature and Grace border on Feenyism, a schimatic ideology of the early o mid 20th century in Catholicism.
Nonetheless, I think The Confessions is one of the greatest theological works or literature written in the Western world. In fact, I like Augustine’s more platonic themes found in this period. In many respects, those are the themes played with with wirters like CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien especially the theme of light and dark in Tokien’s work.
LikeLike
I cannot remember the number of years for which Augustine was a Christian pre and post his encounter with Pelagius I think it was about 23 and 20 years respectively. I would find it useful to know which periods are applicable when reading quotes from Augustine.
I read his confessions which were written in the early period (about 401 AD) and did not find those features I am opposed to. I did not find sections of the City of God very pleasing. I’, convinced that he determinism of his later period is incompatible with the love of God or the Biblical character of God and I think it was these features that were rejected by the Council of Orange.
The Charge in Wilsons work is that in the heat of debate with Pelagius that Augustine returned to a philosophical deterministic position due to his former commitment to Manichaeism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose I’d have to look at the dating of his Pelagian works and the dating of his Retractions. In his retractions, he makes it clear that he support human free will, I found it to be similiar to compatibalism and Aquinas in Retractions. He looks to be repudiating a prior position in that work.
I actually like “On Grace and Nature” for the most part. I get what you’re saying as I’ve discussed with Augustine’s change in view on baptism in that particular work. Nonetheless, I think the strength of that particular work is the focus on if you believe you can merit heaven by your own powers, you’ve made “void the cross of Christ.”
LikeLike
I skimmed through this book and the kindle edition is $5, it looked interesting enough, so I bought it for a further look.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find myself wondering whether research on Lactantius would be profitable. I generally like what I’ve read of his material and there’s less pressure with him.
LikeLike