I am curious as to what is your opinion on this quote by Augustine:
"For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
I agree with Calvin's assessment of the specious use of that citation from Augustine...
John Calvin (1509-1564): Indeed, I know that statement of Augustine is commonly referred to, that he would not believe the gospel if the authority of the church did not move him to do so. But it is easy to grasp from the context how wrongly and deceptively they interpret this passage. Augustine was there concerned with the Manichees, who wished to be believed without controversy when they claimed, but did not demonstrate, that they themselves possessed the truth. Because in fact they used the gospel as a cloak to promote faith in their Mani, Augustine asks: “What would they do if they were to light upon a man who does not even believe in the gospel? By what kind of persuasion would they bring him around to their opinion?” Then he adds, “Indeed, I would not believe the gospel,” etc., meaning that if he were alien to the faith, he could not be led to embrace the gospel as the certain truth of God unless constrained by the authority of the church. And what wonder if someone, not yet having known Christ, should have respect for men! 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?”
These are Augustine’s very words. From them it is easy for anyone to infer that the holy man’s intention was not to make the faith that we hold in the Scriptures depend upon the assent or judgment of the church. He only meant to indicate what we also confess as true: those who have not yet been illumined by the Spirit of God are rendered teachable by reverence for the church, so that they may persevere in learning faith in Christ from the gospel. Thus, he avers, the authority of the church is an introduction through which we are prepared for faith in the gospel. For, as we see, he wants the certainty of the godly to rest upon a far different foundation. I do not deny that elsewhere, when he wishes to defend Scripture, which they repudiate, he often presses the Manichees with the consensus of the whole church. Hence, he reproaches Faustus for not submitting to the gospel truth so firm, so stable, celebrated with such glory, and handed down from the time of the apostles through a sure succession. But it never occurs to him to teach that the authority which we ascribe to Scripture depends upon the definition or decree of men. He puts forward only the universal judgment of the church, in which he was superior to his adversaries, because of its very great value in this case. If anyone desires a fuller proof of this, let him read Augustine’s little book The Usefulness of Belief. There he will find that the author recommends no other inducement to believe except what may provide us with an approach and be a suitable beginning for inquiry, as he himself says; yet we should not acquiesce in mere opinion, but should rely on sure and firm truth.
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book I.7.3, pp. 76-78.
In this latter passage of Augustine quoted by Calvin, we read Augustine expressing himself more clearly:
"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." See
NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14. 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, PL 42:183. (emphasis mine)
We see, then, it is the Reformed position, rather than the Roman, that expresses the Augustinian perspective. Elsewhere in his Confessions, Augustine described essentially the same effect of God’s Truth on him inwardly:
"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." See
NPNF1: Vol. I, The Confessions of St. Augustine, Book XI, Chapter 3. Audiam et intelligam quomodo in principio fecisti coelum et terram (Gen. I, 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. (emphasis mine)
And again, in his work
On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins (written around the year 411 A.D.), he expressed his mature thoughts in this manner:
"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." See
NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Chapter 37. 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 (I Cor. III, 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. (emphasis mine)
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. 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.” See
NPNF2: Vol.: Volume X, Of the Christian Faith, Book I, Chapter 13, §79. 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. But Augustine expressed it long before the 16th century reformers.
To be sure, We acknowledge with Augustine that the Church is most often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ. With respect to the above passage from Augustine, Heiko Oberman explains that he never exalted the authority of the Church over the Scriptures: 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.
Scripture furnishes us with a clear illustration of this in the fourth chapter of John’s gospel. After being confronted by Christ, the woman of Samaria returns to her city, bearing witness to him: 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.’ So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. And many more believed because of His own word. 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’ (John 4:39–42). Though it was the woman’s witness which intially induced belief in Christ, nonetheless, confirmation of their faith rested finally 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, it does not follow that she became the infallible bulwark of their subsequent faith. They came to trust, not in her word, but Christ’s. Answering the argument proposed by the Roman apologist Stapleton regarding this comment by Augustine, William Whitaker replied, ‘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.’ This is what Scripture means when it speaks of the Church as ‘the pillar and support of the truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15). The Church’s role is to be a support to the truth by faithfully holding forth the message and authority of the written Scriptures. It is not independent of, or above Scripture, but beneath it.
Oberman further comments, ‘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.’ 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 a patristic principle as seen in Augustine’s statement above. Faith comes, not by the Church as the origin of faith, but by hearing the word of God empowered by 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).
I would encourage you to acquaint yourself with the literature of our esteemed reformers, rather than listening to the ravings of Roman apologists. These same sophistries were employed against our reformers before us, and they answered them well! Read Calvin, Whitaker, etc., and even the evangelical Anglican William Goode's massive three volume work,
The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice. Invest a little of your own resources. Moreover, William Webster and some other nobody published a three volume work in defense of sola Scriptura back in 2001, titled
Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. If you want to engage Roman apologists, then you need to invest some of your own resources, namely reading time and money, in order to be able to respond to them appropriately. That's my advice, which is admittedly *cheap*. If you do not have the time or money, then perhaps your energies would be better spent elsewhere. But don't be impressed by the shallow sophistries of this or that Roman apologist. They are like the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees whom our Lord rebuked, who travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, they make him twice as much a son of hell as themselves (Matthew 23:15).
