I’ve heard it said that evangelical Christians don’t study our church history very deeply. As a fellow evangelical, I think there is, unfortunately, a lot of truth in this statement. Contemporary Christians can learn a great deal from the history of their faith. But where to start? This series, “Christian Thinkers 101,” provides a snapshot of some of the faith’s key theologians and apologists and their important books and ideas.
Let’s begin with the man who is the most popular church father.
Though he lived 1,600 years ago, St. Augustine remains revered. But what exactly did he believe and what did he contribute to Christianity? Here’s your crash course on the life and accomplishments of St. Augustine—and why he still matters today.
Who Was Augustine?
St. Augustine (AD 354–430) was born in North Africa to a pagan father and a Christian mother. Following a youth and an early career steeped in debauchery and ambition, Augustine experienced a dramatic conversion to Christianity when he turned from his pagan beliefs. His classic book Confessions details his conversion story and, to this day, remains widely acknowledged as the first Western autobiography.
Augustine was a prolific author, a robust theologian, an insightful philosopher, and a tenacious apologist for the truth of historic Christianity. He is a universal Christian voice within Western Christendom and remains today as important to Protestants as he is to Catholics. He is also the only Christian thinker to be mentioned in songs by Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones.
What Did Augustine Write?
Being the most productive author of the ancient world, Augustine penned more than 5 million words. Many of his works were influential, making it difficult to identify his most important books. Perhaps the two that stand out most are Confessions and The City of God. Confessions chronicles Augustine’s intellectual, moral, and spiritual pilgrimage from paganism to Christianity. If you want to learn more about Augustine, pick up Confessions; you’ll be reading a Christian and literary classic. The City of God, his most comprehensive work, gave the Western world its first philosophy of history and presented and defended a distinctly Christian view of history.
What Did Augustine Believe?
Christians of various traditions continue to defend several of Augustine’s beliefs. Perhaps three of Augustine’s most important ideas or arguments for the God of Christian theism are the following:
- Rest and peace for human beings is found only in God. This is the central theme of Confessions. As creatures made in God’s image, humans can only find genuine rest and peace for their souls through salvation in Jesus Christ.
- According to Augustine, human beings are dependent upon God’s grace for salvation. Known as the doctor gratiae (“doctor of grace”), Augustine argued vigorously that Christianity was uniquely a religion of divine rescue instead of a works-based, self-help religion that was advocated by some of Augustine’s opponents.
- In response to the problem of evil, Augustine argued that while evil is real it is not a substance or a “thing.” Rather, evil is a privation, an absence of goodness in the human will. Therefore, God did not create evil; only good. Augustine further argued that the origin of evil resulted when Lucifer chose a lower good (himself) and exalted it above the ultimate good (God).
Why Does Augustine Matter Today?
Augustine has been criticized for introducing Neoplatonic ideas into Christian theology, failing to be sufficiently systematic in his writings, and for being excessively pessimistic in his view of human nature. Yet many Augustine scholars consider these criticisms highly overstated.1 Nevertheless, while Christianity has produced many prominent thinkers, Augustine may be the most influential Christian thinker outside of the New Testament authors. His significant influence, especially on Western Christianity, is directly tied to his profound work as a theologian, philosopher, apologist, and church bishop.
St. Augustine has influenced evangelical protestants virtually as much as he has influenced Catholics. When evangelicals speak of a God-shaped hole within the human heart, or argue that God didn’t create evil, or insist that salvation is not achieved on the basis of good works, they are affirming ideas that Augustine articulated and passionately defended.
Reflections: Your Turn
Augustine’s key spiritual insight is that human beings were made for God; thus, their inner existential longing will only find contentment through a redemptive relationship with God. Is this your experience? Does this comport well with humankind’s search for peace?
Resources
- My former podcast, Straight Thinking, contains several episodes that discuss St. Augustine, including an episode called “Augustine’s Top Five Contributions to Philosophy.”
- To read a two-part article that I wrote about Augustine, see: “Augustine of Hippo (Part 1 of 2)” and “Augustine of Hippo (Part 2 of 2).”
- Two years ago, I gave a six-part lecture on Augustine in which I discussed some of the key events in his life along with his most important writings, ideas, and achievements: “If I Had Lunch with St. Augustine.”
- While Augustine wrote an autobiography titled Confessions, a fine recent biography of Augustine’s life and thoughts is found in Peter Brown’s Augustine of Hippo: A Biography.
Endnotes
- To hear my response to these criticisms, see my audio series, “If I Had Lunch with St. Augustine.”
Reflections 
Thanks for writing this up, and thank you for sharing the wonderful infographic as well. Christians in general need to try to become more aware of the great thinkers of our past, because often the debates happening now over theological essentials are the same as those that happened in the past. If we were to utilize the resources of the Christian past, we might be able to move forward more effectively–or at least find a new place to start a conversation.
JW:
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. As one scholar said: “We don’t live in the past but the past lives in us.” That quote seems especially applicable to contemporary Christians.
I appreciate your ministry and have benefitted from reading your posts and book reviews.
Best regards in Christ.
Ken Samples
Thanks so much for your comments on Augustine. He was excellent in so many areas. One of the areas I take issue with Him is where he is protecting God from something that God says He did. In Isaiah 45:7 God claims to create light and darkness, peace and evil. He is holy, but has a purpose for evil and he created it for His glory. (See John Piper’s “Desiring God”) Most claim that this word “evil” only refers to natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and tornadoes. I say there is really no difference between being robbed by a person and having a natural disaster take everything from you. God is always holy and just in what He does. He has a right to kill or make alive. I don’t and you don’t. Whether it is a natural disaster or a robber, God is in total control and has His glory as His ultimate motive.
He has every right to make an enemy so He can conquer that enemy and receive more glory. He wants us to see His grace, mercy and justice; of which we would see none if there was no evil.
Colossians1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.
Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers refer to the angelic realms, both good and evil which Jesus created for His glory. I could go on, but the point is that God really is in complete control of all things, and no one resists His will (Romans 9:19).
We have an awesome God who is completely holy, Who created all things including evil for His pleasure and glory, and Who deserves to be treasured as our ultimate treasure, and we should seek all our pleasure, happiness, and joy in Him.
Hello, David.
Thank you for your comments. Many people consider Augustine the greatest theologian outside of the New Testament. Though in the Eastern church he is strongly criticized.
A couple responses for your consideration:
1. I don’t think the language of Isaiah 45:7 is clear enough to justifiably draw the conclusion that God created evil. The NIV, ESV, and NASB translations use either the English words “disaster” or “calamity” not evil. I don’t have my Hebrew lexicon handy or I would check the Hebrew word itself.
2. Some commentators view the language of “darkness” and “disaster” of Isaiah 45:7 as a reference to the divine judgments upon Egypt during the Exodus. This was God using natural events to judge the sins of Egypt not creating evil.
3. I think there is a genuine difference between robbery and a natural disaster. It is the difference between what philosophers call moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil involves a personal agent who intentionally robs. Natural evil like a tsunami is a natural event without personal moral intent. Many people died in the Japanese tsunami because they lived too close to the coast. There was irresponsible choices on human being’s part that contributed to the disaster in Japan. Now I guess you can say that God is the personal moral intent behind natural disasters but not all natural disasters are agents of divine wrath. Fire is a good natural thing but it can be misused and cause great calamity. Moreover, many natural disasters carry with them positive features. For example, earthquakes cause calamity but scientists say that without plate tectonics that cause earthquakes planet earth would not be a habitable planet for human beings to live upon. So there is a trade off of good and bad when it comes to natural disasters.
4. Augustine did not think God created evil because he didn’t think evil was a substance. This to some degree reflected a Neoplatonic influence. However, I still think he has a point and that is that evil is not a thing but rather a quality (the absence or violation of goodness). God creates things not qualities. God doesn’t created goodness or morality rather those qualities flow from his moral nature. Similarly God doesn’t create math or logic those realities flow from God’s nature. Thus God didn’t create evil rather he created agents will freedom who themselves brought forth evil.
5. I haven’t read Piper on the topic of evil but God doesn’t make evil angels or evil humans rather Lucifer and Adam used or misused their freedom to rebel against God and become evil.
6. I’m a Protestant Augustinian and Reformed so I definitely believe God controls all things (Eph. 1:11). But God allows evil and uses evil for his good purposes but I think it is wrong from a Christian point of view to say that evil itself comes from God or that he created it.
I do appreciate your comments and they definitely made me think.
Best regards in Christ my friend.
Ken Samples
Augustine was brilliant, no doubt, but in the words of Michael Heiser, his context is not the biblical context. There are things Augustine got right, and things that he got very wrong. Let’s just be mindful to not treat him as the litmus test for forming or filtering biblical theology, otherwise the theology we end up with risks incorporating anachronism.
Hello, Daniel.
Thanks for your comments.
I think Augustine did get certain things wrong and as I said in the crash course article one doesn’t have to agree with everything he wrote to be part of the Augustinian tradition. I think Augustine would be the first person to say that everything he wrote should be tested by Scripture. In fact, Augustine’s last book was called Retractions where he admitted that he had gotten certain things wrong. I don’t know many Christian thinkers of the past or the present who would dare write such an honest and humble book.
As to the things you say he got “very wrong,” I noted in the crash course article the general criticisms that Augustine receives today. However, many of us who have deeply studied Augustine and his writings think he got the most important things right (Trinity, salvation by Grace, original sin). Moreover, right or wrong, Augustine casts a huge shadow over Western Christendom and that influence includes Catholics and Protestants.
I’d like to invite you to read the articles I’ve written on Augustine that are linked to the crash course article. There are also six lectures that I gave that address many aspects of Augustine’s life and accomplishments and includes I think a fair-minded discussion of the criticisms of Augustine and some viable responses.
Thanks for reading my article and for leaving your thoughtful comments.
Best regards in Christ.
Ken Samples
You started off your article with a statement that is true in all studies concerning our faith:
“I’ve heard it said that evangelical Christians don’t study our church history very deeply. As a fellow evangelical, I think there is, unfortunately, a lot of truth in this statement.”
I have encountered many Christians who believe that reading anything other than the Bible is just wrong. They claim that reading some man’s work makes us follow the teachings of man rather than God. That our heads get filled with man’s knowledge instead of the Word of God.
A.W. Tozer wrote;
John Wesley told the young ministers of the Wesleyan Societies to read or get out of the ministry, and he himself read science and history with a book propped against his saddle pommel as he rode from one engagement to another.
Andy Dolbow, the American Indian preacher of considerable note, was a man of little education, but I once heard him exhort his hearers to improve their minds for the honor of God. “When you are chopping wood,” he explained, “and you have a dull axe you must work all the harder to cut the log. A sharp axe makes easy work. So sharpen your axe all you can.” The Size of the Soul, 33.
I am a firm believer that the most powerful weapon against the atheistic teachings that have permeated our society is a spirit filled believer that is well read.
I have advocated on my Facebook page on numerous occasions how vital it is for us to read, and not just on Biblical topics.
For instance, how many Christians have read Aquinas’ 5 point argument for the existence of God or Paschal’s Wager. How about Bertrand Russell’s Why I am Not a Christian or Nietzsche’ Parable of the Madman
My point is that we need to read; read often and read well.
The Apostle Paul gave us this proof when he cited a Greek poet in Acts 17 as part of his gospel presentation. He was a master at knowing his audience and is something we need to master as well.
Nawdewblog:
Greetings.
I appreciate your comments very much. Your points about reading are great.
Best regards in Christ.
Ken Samples
It is true that “evangelical Christians don’t study our church history very deeply.” The problem with this is that even those that do study church history cherry pick among his teachings. Augustine never taught the “faith only” (sola fide) that evangelicals teach today. He wrote an entire treatise on Water Baptism and its effectual salvation in “On Baptism, Against the Donatists”
“By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man’s salvation is made complete through the two together.” (Augustine, On Baptism, Book IV, Ch. 25)
“Take away the water, it is no baptism; take away the Word, it is no baptism.” (Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 15:4)
Augustine is Evangelical Christianity’s own worst enemy when really studying church history. Today’s church teaches nothing like what the original church taught as they “wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.”
No wonder there are so many atheists today when they see the corruption of doctrine that causes them to question the validity of God’s “church”.
Rob:
Greetings in Christ’s name.
Thank you for your comments.
First, I assume from the content and tenor of your comments that you are a theologically conservative or even traditional Roman Catholic. I could be wrong about this (after writing this I now see an lds in your email title) but I’ll respond as if you are a Catholic. If I’m wrong, I apologize. But some of my points also relate to Mormonism.
Just a few points in response to the message you left:
1. I’m a serious student of St. Augustine (having read and studied a number of his writings multiple times and even published articles about him) and quite frankly given that he wrote more than five million words it isn’t always easy to represent the breadth of his thought. So it is easy to engage in “cherry picking” about this tremendously prolific and brilliant ancient author.
2. I freely admit that to some degree I view St. Augustine from a Protestant standpoint, though I try to remember this bias and reflect him and his ideas as objectively as I can. The Crash Course article that you respond to was intentionally written for evangelical Protestants who too often know little about some of historic Christianity’s great thinkers. However, may I say with all due respect (and I do indeed respect Catholics), I think you also view Augustine through a Roman Catholic prism that to some degree is limited and biased in perspective.
3. I agree that Augustine never affirmed justification by faith exactly the way the founding Protestants did, but his criticisms of Pelagius made it clear that he viewed salvation as solely a work of grace without human merit. In fact, there have been a number of respected church historians who have made the case (albeit an admitted oversimplification) that the Protestant Reformation reflected a battle between Augustine’s view of grace (Protestants) and Augustine’s view of the church (Catholics). I don’t expect you as a Catholic to accept this theological interpretation of church history but I think it might help you to understand how many Protestant scholars view Augustine. St. Augustine’s writings have powerfully influenced the theology of Western Christendom, and that includes both Catholic and Protestant churches.
4. You quoted St. Augustine concerning baptism: You should know that much of Protestantism affirms infant baptism and some even a form of baptismal regeneration. Though it is also correct that another significant part of evangelical Protestantism also rejects the validity of infant baptism and vociferously opposes baptismal regeneration. But Protestant scholars, like me, believe one can disagree with some of what Augustine taught and still be in the broad and proud tradition of Augustinianism.
5. I can only speculate what St. Augustine would think about today’s Christendom: But I actually think he would agree sometimes with “conservative Catholicism” (for the Catholic Church is far from monolithic) and sometimes with conservative Protestantism (also clearly not monolithic). Though likely he would side more often with the Catholic Church. But I think your comment that Augustine would be “Evangelical Christianity’s worst enemy” is emotive, historically uninformed, and reflects a less than ecumenical Catholic triumphalism. May I respectfully remind you that the Second Vatican Council referred to Protestants as “separated brethren.” And Vatican II even allowed for religious inclusivism where people in other non-Christian religions may be saved as, in Rahner’s words, “anonymous Christians.” The truth is that evangelical Protestantism has much in common theologically with traditional Catholicism (reflected in the ecumenical creeds).
6. You claim that the emergence of atheism is to be laid at the door of evangelical Protestants for their doctrinal corruption. But as a scholar and apologist I actually talk with and debate atheists. I can tell you that they are very fond of noting the divisions within Christendom and especially happy to point out that Catholics and Protestants often seem to disrespect and even condemn each other and they view this as a good reason to reject all forms of Christianity.
In closing, while I have some serious doctrinal differences with Roman Catholicism, I do respect the Catholic Church and I pray that theologically conservative Catholics and theologically conservative Protestants can work together as worldview allies in promoting and defending such critical ethical issues as the sanctity of human life and traditional marriage.
By the way I have engaged in dialogues and debates with such fine Catholic scholars as Father Mitchell Pacwa, Scott Hahn, and Mark Brumley. Here is a link to my dialogue-debate with my friend Mitch Pacwa from several years ago:
http://www.reasons.org/blogs/reflections/debating-the-authority-of-scripture
This will have to be my only response to you given my busy writing schedule. I’m sorry but I can’t carry on a back and forth dialogue with you via posts.
Jesus Christ is Lord!
Respectfully yours,
Ken Samples
Thank you for responding. I am indeed LDS, not Catholic. I enjoy reading Augustine, of which I feel I am rather unbiased due to the lack of authority and regard that Mormons have for him. As a Mormon, we disagree with much of what Augustine (and the RCC) taught, especially concerning paedobaptism and original sin. But, I guess my point was that one really has to throw out half of Augustine’s writings (thus the cherry picking) to believe he taught anything resembling Evangelical or Reformed Christianity. (Note, that I specifically mean these specific sects, or theologies, within Protestantism). And you even seem to admit to this if Augustine were alive today.
So, I really do not understand the one sided interpretation Evangelicals have from his writings. Maybe you could direct me to where.
You mention that he criticized Pelagianism, but you may understand it differently than I do. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Bishop Aurelius, quotes these six theses of Caelestius, “which clearly contain the quintessence of Pelagianism”:
1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
2. Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
3. Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
4. The whole human race neither dies through Adam’s sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
5. The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
6. Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.
I know of no Mormon who believes any portion of Pelagianism as defined here (other than maybe #3 if you stretch it), so the “salvation by works” is really a red herring and a false argument. Nor have I read anything in Augustine’s writings to contraindicate man’s ability to come to God on his own (through Synergism as opposed to Monergism). And NOTHING like Calvin’s “Total Depravity” – even though I know not all Evangelicals believe it, but many do.
The real debate is, Protestants and Catholics have been arguing over the definition of “works”. Mormons got caught up in the middle of this, but we are probably more in line with Martin Luther (an Augustinian monk) who said. “Yes, it is true that our works are of no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is not our work but God’s… God’s works are saving and necessary for salvation, and do not exclude, but demand, faith; for without faith they could not be apprehended.”
As Mormons, we are far from believing that we are saved by “our works”. We also just believe there are more of “God’s works”, and that “His works” have a real efficacy in our lives. Baptism is just one example…
Water Baptism was taught extensively by the Early Fathers, including Augustine, as a middle ground between God and Man that was a “washing” for “remission of sin”. It seem to be basically the same thing that Evangelicals believe by “justification by faith” (or “imputed righteousness”). Why remake the wheel?
So prolific were the Early Church writings of a regenerative water baptism that it seems the only options available are that the Early Fathers apostatized from “faith only” through teaching the heresies and falsehoods of REQUIRING baptism as a “work”, or that much of Evangelical Christianity is in apostasy today by rejecting the efficacy of water baptism.
That is why the “emotive” that Augustine is not friendly to, note specifically, Evangelical and Reformed versions of Protestantism.
Rob:
Greetings again.
I’ll respond to you once more because you are a Mormon and not a Catholic (sorry about that). But this will have to be my last correspondence because of some writing deadlines.
Here are two articles that I have published on St. Augustine that I think you will find quite interesting:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/augustine-of-hippo-part-1-of-2-from-pagan-to-cultist-to-skeptic-to-christian-sage
http://www.reasons.org/articles/augustine-of-hippo-part-2-of-2-rightly-dividing-the-truth
Also arguably the definitive work on St. Augustine is now found in Allan D. Fitzgerald, ed., Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). This encyclopedia has hundreds of articles written by the best Augustine scholars both Catholic and Protestant. I’ve written a review of this work on amazon.com.
1. I’m glad you enjoy studying St. Augustine and I hope you will continue doing so. Many historical theologians (Catholic and Protestant) consider him the most influential Christian theologian outside the New Testament authors. He influenced Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Thomas Cranmer just to name a few big theological names.
2. As a Mormon you don’t have a stake in the Catholic-Protestant debate about Augustine (“unbiased”), but the best Augustine scholars to learn from are usually Catholic or Protestant.
3. Augustine directly influenced the theological structure of both Catholicism and Protestantism (though stronger for the magisterial side of the Reformation: Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican). For Catholicism, he influenced their view of the sacraments and ecclesiology (via the Donatist controversy). For Protestantism, he influenced their view of original sin, salvation exclusively by grace, and predestination (via the Pelagian controversy). So if Augustine were alive today he would no doubt see common ground in both the Catholic and Protestant churches.
4. Augustine’s view of predestination evolved through the years. The early Augustine affirmed a type of synergism where God elects those he knew would choose him (election based upon foreknowledge: similar to modern-day Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Arminianism). However, the older Augustine asserted that God chose the elect and passed over the reprobate based upon his own sovereign prerogative and will (election based upon God’s autonomous and inscrutable choice: similar to the Reformed). See the article on “predestination” in Augustine Through the Ages for the sections to read in Augustine’s writings. So Augustine’s later view on predestination is very close to the Reformed view expressed by some in today’s evangelicalism.
5. Regarding the question of justification by grace through faith, theologian Thomas Oden argues in his book The Justification Reader that all the major church fathers affirmed “justification by grace through faith.” So even if Augustine didn’t differentiate between justification and sanctification the way Luther did, his view of justification was by grace alone and thus eliminated human merit. Baptism merely conveys God’s sacramental grace. So again Augustine’s view of soteriology is very close to evangelical Protestants today.
6. Today’s evangelical Protestants in the Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican traditions view themselves as being part of the broad Augustinian tradition. But being Augustinian doesn’t mean that you can’t disagree with particular views that Augustine held. Just as being in the Reformed tradition doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with some of John Calvin’s particular views. The general tradition is broader than the individual. See the article on Augustinianism and Protestantism by Richard Muller in Augustine Through the Ages.
In closing, allow me with all due respect and candor to present an Augustinian challenge to your LDS views:
I think Augustine and Augustinianism (both conservative Catholic and Protestant) would categorically reject the following Mormon beliefs.
While the LDS religion claims to be Christian, it nevertheless teaches the following doctrines that are incompatible with historic Christianity:
(1) The Mormons believe in polytheism (tritheism).
(2) The Mormons believe that obedient Mormons will become gods themselves (deification).
(3) The Mormons have added to the Word of God their own revelations (The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price).
So it seems that Augustine like Protestant Augustinians today would view LDS theology as outside of historic Christianity. Or to use your words, Augustine would not be friendly to LDS theology.
While we disagree theologically, I earnestly wish you well in your life and continued theological studies. I think Mormons and evangelical Protestants can be allies in standing up for the sanctity of human life today.
Now I’ve got to return to my book writing.
Best regards from a friendly Protestant Augustinian.
Ken Samples
Have just read this excellent introduction to Augustine. I have been a Christian for 37 years and it is my testimony that my heart found rest in God. One of the things I love iis being able to thank someone for all the beautiful things I see in nature – I could not imagine life not being able to do that. Thanks for this Ken, I pray for you and the team every week.
Hello, Steve.
Glad you are doing some reading on Augustine.
Finding rest and peace in God is the very purpose of life itself.
Thank you for your kind words and your prayers.
Best regards in Christ.
Ken Samples
Reblogged this on Is Christianity True?.
Thanks again for the reblog, Steve.
Ken Samples
I have been a fan of augustine for a long time and just recently discovered the importance of jerome and both were aware of chyrsostom a contemporary – in my blog I am trying to tie them together – three giants of the fourth and fifth century – I have often said that thomas proved faith was reasonable and augustine proved without faith there is no reason – jerome defined the bible
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Apocalypse.
Thanks for the link.
Ken Samples
Hi Kenneth,
I wanted to comment here, because I recently discovered something in my (secular) collegiate studies (in History) about the Church fathers. The discovery was their views and statements regarding women. Don’t get me wrong, I understand Biblical gender roles, I know how what place I have as a woman in the church, and I’ve read the scriptures regarding it (from the OT laws to Peter’s and Paul’s epistles), but still the quotations provided shocked me. And I’ll admit, they were pretty awful to read.
As Saint Augustine was one of those quoted, I wondered if you or others had touched on that with him or the other church fathers, because it saddens me to think of how other, naive, evangelical (I appreciated what you said about the prevalence of ignorance because it is sadly true) young women may react to the stuff being taught in secular colleges if they aren’t prepared for that information, especially with how popular and aggressive certain taught ideologies have become (such as feminism). Just a thought, I guess, and a concern I wanted to bring out into the open.
Thanks and God Bless!
Destiny:
Greetings.
Thanks for raising the issue about the church father’s view of woman in general and St Augustine in particular.
There is so much to read in St. Augustine (he wrote more than 5 million words and is the most prolific author of the entire ancient world including Greek and Latin) that I haven’t examined his writings about women in sufficient detail. In the future I hope to.
Nevertheless for what I think is a thoughtful response to the current charge that St. Augustine was prejudicial toward woman, see “ST AUGUSTINE—A MALE CHAUVINIST?” by Fr. Edmund Hill, OP (Dominican) delivered at Cambridge in 1994 (linked below).
It at least offers another perspective to the common feminist viewpoint about St. Augustine.
My best regards in Christ,
Ken Samples
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/st-augustine–a-male-chauvinist-10087