The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love by Augustine of Hippo
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
This little work was a pleasure to read. It consists of Augustine’s thoughts on the Nicene Creed (faith) the Lord’s Prayer (hope) and a short discourse on Christian love. It will serve as a good introduction to Augustine’s theological thought.
For my part, I love Augustine’s emphasis on the primacy of grace. His defense of the sacramental system is irritating, as it seems very weak. Finally, his take on faith and works is quite disappointing. He does not clearly distinguish between justification and sanctification.
There are a lot of things in this short work that will make the Christian’s heart rejoice, and there a few things that are less than celebratory. By any account, this little “handbook” of theology is worth reading, for Augustine is always worth reading.
I read “Enchiridion de Fide, Spe, et Caritate” in Robert Duncan Culver’s class “St. Augustine” in 1974. It is the closest thing we have to a “summa” of his theology from his pen. It is a wonderful little book, akin to Calvin’s “Golden Book of the True Christian Life” excerpted from the “Institutes.”
Tim,
Regarding St. Augustine’s not distinguishing between justification and sanctification, you’d think the great saint and doctor would at least have been aware of the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. His defense of the sacramental system is “weak” because in his time, it needed no defense. It was (and is) the Tradition received from the Apostles and practiced all over the universal Church.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan, with all due respect, “the Tradition received from the Apostles and practiced all over the universal church” is the contents of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. That Tradition is summarized in the Ecumenical Creeds (i.e., Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian). Augustine doesn’t distinguish between justification and sanctification because the doctrine of justification by faith alone was not in controversey in his day. His greatest adversaries were Manichaeans (who thought matter was evil), Donatists (who denied the objective character of Christ’s sacraments), and Pelagians (who denied the total depravity of fallen human nature and the need for divine grace from beginning to end). It was left to Anselm to delineate the doctrine of the atonement and to Luther and Calvin and the other Reformers to explicate the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The church must grow in understanding of God’s Word and the system of truth set forth therein!
Bryan, the apostles clearly distinguished between justification and sanctification. If Augustine, as magnificent as he was generally, didn’t clearly maintain the apostolic distinction, that’s not my problem… it’s his. I’ll grant that he’s a pains to oppose something that looked like the “easy believism” of his day. Being Reformed, I oppose it, too. I hold that faith works by love, and that that’s the only faith (true and living faith) that justifies. I would, however, like to see a finer point on that doctrine that this great man put on it.
My impressions of his defense (and in his defense, this book is clearly not meant to be a “defense” at all) of the sacramental system is that he is trying to justify the church practice of his day. To assert, as you do, that it is the apostolic practice is most unlikely. I cannot deny, however, that it was the tradition of his day.
The apostolic tradition is found in the apostolic writings… the New Testament. Beyond that, what runs contrary to their writings should not be received as their practice or theory.
Just so you know, Bryan, I believe in the assumption of Mary and other things *not contrary* to the written revelation of God. I believe these things on the testimony of the church, who is the mother of the faithful.