Can you be saved by faith alone?

[Valery]

No he didn't.

This might indicate that Augustine held more than a simply utilitarian view of womankind. However, in his Literal Commentary on Genesis, the woman is found, figuratively speaking, walking behind the man, barefoot and pregnant. Augustine reasons that for purposes of either companionship or assistance in physical labor, another man would have been a more suitable "helper" than a woman. He concludes: "If it were not the case that the woman was created to be a man's helper specifically for the production of children, then why would she have been created as 'helper' (Gen. 2:18)? . .I cannot think of any reason for a woman's being made as a man's helper, if we dismiss the reason of procreation."13

Also

Accordingly, in his Literal Commentary on Genesis, Augustine speculates as to how Adam, being already spiritual "in mind" could have been led astray. He concludes that this was one of the reasons "woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by the superior reason...that through her the man became guilty of transgression.'" Assuming woman's natural inferiority, Augustine asks, "Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?"
https://www.cbeinternational.org/re...papers-academic-journal/woman-augustine-hippo

 

[phattonez]

Also

That's quite different than saying women are only good for procreation.

 

[Valery]

That's quite different than saying women are only good for procreation.

I was thinking of a different quotation. Can't find it now. It was my wording, but he had a very low opinion of women. Do you deny that? Thomas Aquinas had similar ideas.

“as regards [to] the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten.”

St. Thomas Aquinas is Not Sexist - Clarifying Catholicism

8 minutes By Katie Hugo, Franciscan University Thomas Aquinas was a well-known Catholic priest and saint who lived in the thirteenth century. The medieval theologian was part of the Order of Preachers, also known as the Dominicans. He wrote several works on various topics related to...

clarifyingcatholicism.org

 

[phattonez]

I was thinking of a different quotation. Can't find it now. It was my wording, but he had a very low opinion of women. Do you deny that? Thomas Aquinas had similar ideas.

They deny the equality of men and women, but it's nothing like what you're saying. Look at the further context of Aquinas:
"On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female."

The part your quote came from addressed the false biology at the time. Immediately after Aquinas says this, denying this "misbegotten" description.

 

[Mulefoot]

There is no grace that God could trust his honor so safely with in this business of justification as with faith. The great design God hath in justifying a poor sinner is to magnify his free mercy in the eye of his creature. This is written in such fair characters in the word, that he who runs {to it} may read it. God was resolved that his free mercy should go away with all the honor, and the creature should be quite cut out from any pretensions to partnership with him therein. Now there is no way like to this of being justified by faith, for the securing and safe-guarding of the glory of God's free grace, Rom. 3:25, 26. When the apostle hath in some verses together discoursed of the free justification of a sinner before God, he goes on to show how this cuts the very comb, yea throat, of all self-exalting thoughts, ver. 27: 'Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.' Princes, of all wrongs, most disdain and abhor to see their royal bed defiled. So jealous they have been of this, that, for the prevention of all suspicion of such a foul fact, it hath been of old the custom of the greatest monarchs, that those who were their favorites, and admitted into nearest attendance upon their own per sons and queens, should be eunuchs--such whose very disability of nature might remove all suspicion of any such attempt by them. Truly, God is more jealous of having the glory of his name ravished by the pride and self-glorying of the creature, than ever any prince was of having his queen deflowered. And therefore to secure it from any such horrid abuse, he hath chosen faith--this eunuch grace, as I may so call it--to stand so nigh him, and be employed by him in this high act of grace, whose very nature, being a self-emptying grace, renders it incapable of entering into any such design against the glory of God's grace. Faith hath two hands; with one it pulls off its own righteousness and throws it away, as David did Saul's armor; with the other it puts on Christ's righteousness over the soul's shame, as that in which it dares alone see God or be seen of him. 'This makes it impossible,' saith learned and holy Master Ball, 'how to conceive that faith and works should be conjoined as con-causes in justification; seeing the one--that is faith--attributes all to the free grace of God; the other--that is works--challenge to themselves. The one, that is faith, will aspire no higher but to be the instrumental cause of free remission; the other can sit no lower, but to be the matter of justification, if any cause at all. For, if works be accounted to us in the room or place of exact obedience in free justification, do they not supply the place? are they not advanced to the dignity of works complete and perfect in justification from justice?'

William Gurnall

 

[Valery]

Look at the further context of Aquinas:
"On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the
universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female."

The part your quote came from addressed the false biology at the time. Immediately after Aquinas says this, denying this "misbegotten" description.

He recognised woman was created by God? How does that contradict his other statements?

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence;

Here the writer of the article says the "mistake" was due to lack of knowledge of biology, but if that were the case, why would Thomas Aquinas assume that women were defective and misbegotten if it wasn't due to a low opinion of women? Was it a logical conclusion?

Thomas Aquinas discusses the inherent value of women by stating that “on the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation.”

I don't know why the writer says this is about the "inherent value of women". Does it say somewhere so or is it wishful thinking? To me it looks more like he is referring to the task of women bearing children and how it has been intented.

The texts indicate that Thomas Aquinas did see women as equal in human nature and that it further indicates the contemporary views on women were rooted in a major misunderstanding of the scientific process of reproduction, rather than a deep hatred of women.

where does Thomas Aquinas even refer to the scientific process of reproduction?

the quote from Greek thinkers says that “the female is the misbegotten male.”[7] This was a common belief throughout much of history.

Muslims never taught so.

Then the article argues that since Thomas Aquinas raised Mary's status above angels and prophets, to be something divine, he couldn't have had a low opinion of women. The article claims he saw women as equal. Please point out a single Christian in 1200 or around that time who thought of men and women as equal.

 

[Valery]

Wrong...Adam holds the brunt of responsibility...by getting his directions directly from God and being the head of Eve, he understood fully what he was doing...if he had exercised his headship in the proper way, well...things might have been different today...we'll never know...

"Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived+ and became a transgressor." 1 Timothy 2:13

But Eve was the one who tempted him according to the Bible.

The very verse you quote seems to speak against your argument. The woman was deceived, not Adam, and the woman became the transgressor. I.e. Adam didn't become a transgressor and he wasn't deceived.

 

[Daisy]

But Eve was the one who tempted him according to the Bible.

The very verse you quote seems to speak against your argument. The woman was deceived, not Adam, and the woman became the transgressor. I.e. Adam didn't become a transgressor and he wasn't deceived.

Wrong...who would be the one more guilty...a person who is deceived into doing wrong or a person who's not, who knows perfectly well what he's doing and does it anyway?

 

[phattonez]

He recognised woman was created by God? How does that contradict his other statements?

Here the writer of the article says the "mistake" was due to lack of knowledge of biology, but if that were the case, why would Thomas Aquinas assume that women were defective and misbegotten if it wasn't due to a low opinion of women? Was it a logical conclusion?
I don't know why the writer says this is about the "inherent value of women". Does it say somewhere so or is it wishful thinking? To me it looks more like he is referring to the task of women bearing children and how it has been intented. where does Thomas Aquinas even refer to the scientific process of reproduction?
Muslims never taught so.

Then the article argues that since Thomas Aquinas raised Mary's status above angels and prophets, to be something divine, he couldn't have had a low opinion of women. The article claims he saw women as equal. Please point out a single Christian in 1200 or around that time who thought of men and women as equal.

I don't claim he thought they were equal. I said that from the start. I said you were wrong to claim that he thought they were good only for reproduction.

The misbegotten part comes from the biology of the time which thought that in development the natural course was to develop as a male and that women came about from some defect in the process. Even with that biology Aquinas argued against the term because he said God created male and female.

Mary is not divine. Period.

 

[Valery]

No he didn't.

Here it is

What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman… I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children. –Saint Augustine

Twenty Vile Quotes Against Women By Church Leaders from St. Augustine to Pat Robertson

What with diatribes about entertainers who invite rape and moms who are destroying America by supporting their families . . . with ignorant arguments about fetuses that masturbate, and females who …

valerietarico.com

I don't claim he thought they were equal. I said that from the start. I said you were wrong to claim that he thought they were good only for reproduction.

The misbegotten part comes from the biology of the time which thought that in development the natural course was to develop as a male and that women came about from some defect in the process. Even with that biology Aquinas argued against the term because he said God created male and female.

Mary is not divine. Period.

Augustine disagreed.

 

[Valery]

Wrong...who would be the one more guilty...a person who is deceived into doing wrong or a person who's not, who knows perfectly well what he's doing and does it anyway?

Who said he knew better than Eve? Are men smarter?

 

[Daisy]

Who said he knew better than Eve? Are men smarter?

Adam received directions directly from God in Genesis 2:15-17...

"Jehovah God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it. Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction.+ But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”+

Evidently Eve received hers from Adam, her head, which would make sense...no mention of God telling her directly...

 

[NotreDame]

Or is Caritas (love) also required? Let's ask St. Augustine.

Why not consult Paul instead.

“ 8 For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and [a]this is not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God; 9 (D)not a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.”

“ if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and (M)believe in your heart that (N)God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, [g]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [h]resulting in salvation”

John: “ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ”

“ “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts

 

[NotreDame]

but according to Christianity as well as Judaism, we all die because of Eve.

Wishful thinking of those who don't want to do good deeds.

Augustine also said women are only good for reproduction.

Why does it matter “according to Christianity as well as Judaism, we all die because of Eve”? What does the text of the Bible say?

“ 12 Therefore, just as through (A)one man sin entered into the world, and (B)death through sin, and (C)so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned— 13 for [a]until the Law sin was in the world, but (D)sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (E)in the likeness of the [c]violation committed by Adam, who is a [d](F)type of Him who was to come.” Romans 5:12-14.

Paul writes sin and the curse of death is because of Adam.

The curse of death was spoken by God while addressing Adam, not Eve. “ 17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

(S)Cursed is the ground because of you;
(T)With [h]hard labor you shall eat from it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
Yet you shall eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You shall eat bread,
Until you (U)return to the ground,
Because (V)from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

And there is a symmetry to God’s address to Adam. Recall, when Adam was the sole, human occupant, God commanded him to not eat from a specific tree and if he does so, he will die. “ Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and tend it. 16 The Lord God (Q)commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [o]eat, for on the day that you eat from it (R)you will certainly die.”

The command went to Adam. The curse of death was a result of Adam’s disobedience to a specific command given to him by God.

The Bible says sin and death are a result of Adam’s disobedience.

FYI, I’m incredulous as to your remark of “but according to Christianity as well as Judaism, we all die because of Eve.” What’s this based on? Spare me the futile exercise of reading what some Christians said as the “some” will not necessarily be representative of “Christianity”.

 

[NotreDame]

But Eve was the one who tempted him according to the Bible.

The very verse you quote seems to speak against your argument. The woman was deceived, not Adam, and the woman became the transgressor. I.e. Adam didn't become a transgressor and he wasn't deceived.

What Biblical text are you consulting? The Bible unequivocally shows Adam as a transgressor.

When was was flying solo as a human being in Eden, God gave him a command. “ Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and tend it. 16 The Lord God (Q)commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [o]eat, for on the day that you eat from it (R)you will certainly die.”

Fast forward, “ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

(S)Cursed is the ground because of you;
(T)With [h]hard labor you shall eat from it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
Yet you shall eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You shall eat bread,
Until you (U)return to the ground,
Because (V)from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

Adam’s was a transgressors, for eating fruit from a tree God unambiguously instructed him not to eat.

Even Paul identified Adam as a transgressor. “ Therefore, just as through (A)one man sin entered into the world, and (B)death through sin, and (C)so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned— 13 for [a]until the Law sin was in the world, but (D)sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (E)in the likeness of the [c]violation committed by Adam, who is a [d](F)type of Him who was to come.” Romans 5:12-14.”

Adam was a transgressor. This is unambiguously supported by the text of the Bible.

 

[phattonez]

Here it is

Augustine disagreed.

The only citation I can find for that quote is that it is from Augustine's 243rd letter. I can't find that letter in English. Can you? The ellipses make me think Augustine is being taken badly out of context.

Indeed as far as I've found this quote refers to the question of why Adam's helper is a woman and not another man. And indeed, outside of procreation, there isn't another answer.

 

[phattonez]

Why not consult Paul instead.

“ 8 For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and [a]this is not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God; 9 (D)not a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.”

“ if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and (M)believe in your heart that (N)God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, [g]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [h]resulting in salvation”

John: “ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ”

“ “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts

"If I have faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

Can you go to heaven without loving God?

 

[Valery]

Evidently Eve received hers from Adam, her head, which would make sense...no mention of God telling her directly...

But she received the message. On what basis do you make her less accountable? Does the Bible say, because (and if) Adam was the only one to receive the warning from God directly then that makes him more obliged to abide by the rule? Or are you just making things up?

 

[Daisy]

But she received the message. On what basis do you make her less accountable? Does the Bible say, because (and if) Adam was the only one to receive the warning from God directly then that makes him more obliged to abide by the rule? Or are you just making things up?

"Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived+ and became a transgressor." 1 Timothy 2:13

 

[Valery]

"Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived+ and became a transgressor." 1 Timothy 2:13

Being deceived is a negative thing, not a good one. Becoming a transgressor is also a negative thing.

One could say, in the Biblical story, Adam was deceived as well — by his wife, whom he blames to begin with. At the same time he's also blaming God.

 

[Daisy]

Being deceived is a negative thing, not a good one. Becoming a transgressor is also a negative thing.

One could say, in the Biblical story, Adam was deceived as well — by his wife, whom he blames to begin with. At the same time he's also blaming God.

Being deceived is not as bad as knowing wrong and yet doing it...that was Paul's point...

 

[Valery]

Being deceived is not as bad as knowing wrong and yet doing it...that was Paul's point...

And is there anything in the Bible to indicate that Adam knew more than Eve — seeing as they both knew the same warning?

You are basically arguing that Eve indeed was inferior, either intellectually or morally or both, and that is why she caused the fall of mankind, but because Adam too and Adam knew.... Knew what? Knew what Eve knew. Don't eat from the tree.

 

[Daisy]

And is there anything in the Bible to indicate that Adam knew more than Eve — seeing as they both knew the same warning?

You are basically arguing that Eve indeed was inferior, either intellectually or morally or both, and that is why she caused the fall of mankind, but because Adam too and Adam knew.... Knew what? Knew what Eve knew. Don't eat from the tree.

Wrong...I gave the scripture, not once but twice...why was Eve deceived but Adam wasn't...think about what that means...

 

[Valery]

Wrong...I gave the scripture, not once but twice...why was Eve deceived but Adam wasn't...think about what that means...

We don't look for evidence from our own reasoning. If you think the Bible proves your point the proof must be somewhere other than what you keep quoting.

They were both deceived. Do you suggest Adam a) didn't believe the serpent b) knew his wife was deceived and c) knew the fruit would not give him anything and still ate from the tree? Why, was he just indifferent?

 

[Daisy]

We don't look for evidence from our own reasoning. If you think the Bible proves your point the proof must be somewhere other than what you keep quoting.

They were both deceived. Do you suggest Adam a) didn't believe the serpent b) knew his wife was deceived and c) knew the fruit would not give him anything and still ate from the tree? Why, was he just indifferent?

If you don't think God expects you to use your power of reason, why did he give you a brain? No, according to scripture, Adam was NOT deceived...he knew what he was doing and then turned around to blame God..."it was that woman that you gave me"...Genesis 3:12