I've never read of them doing this though. In fact Augustine affirmed creation to be a miracle!
So do I.
That right there is at odds with science by definition, so you're clearly not understanding the principle he's putting forth. The Resurrection by definition is a contradiction of medical science. Bishop Spong consistently denies this truth for the sake of science. Augustine even in his day understood that scientifically men don't rise from the dead, yet he affirmed the resurrection. He did the opposite of the principle you're attributing to him.
Science has carried different meanings throughout history, and is often used as a term for logic or knowledge. God does not contradict logic for logic flows from His very nature. This is why we need to think of God in theo-logical terms. Where the line gets crossed is when we think of God in theo-scientific terms, confining Him to the laws of nature. But God transcends nature.
Isn't that what you are doing when you say the resurrection is a contradiction of medical science? Of course you reject the supposed conclusions of 'science' rather than God, but you have the same view of science and God you complain about. Science can show us dead people don't naturally come back to life, it cannot say if God can raise the dead or not. As I said before that is a very 18th century view of science and one neither I nor people like
Augustine would accept. But that is different from scientific evidence contradicting our interpretation of scripture. That isn't saying God couldn't have done it, but that he didn't do it that way because the evidence says it didn't happen. When the church rejected Cosmas Indocopleustes' flat earth, it wasn't because they didn't think God could create a flat earth, but because the evidence scientific evidence showed the earth was spherical. When the church rejected the literal geocentric interpretation of Joshua's miracle, it wasn't because science showed God couldn't create a cosmos where the sun travels across the sky and returns to the place it rises every night, but because the scientific evidence showed the cosmos simply wasn't like that.
Now when I look at guys like Augustine I don't see them reasoning even remotely the way you and bishop spong are. They're not perfect theologians, but their issues are not merely those of unbelief where they change the meaning of the text in order to accommodate. You're completely misunderstanding what they're saying.
You are assuming I reason like Spong when I simply don't recognise the thinking you try to attribute to me. I do recognise my attitude to miracles and science in the teaching Augustine and Aquinas and church scholars down through the centuries. We have no problem with God doing supernaturally what does not happen naturally. But we have the humility to realise we can get our interpretation wrong, and an interpretation contradicted by solid evidence is simply not the right interpretation.
Here is what
Augustine had to say on the subject
37. In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture...
This is shortly before Augustine's famous 'disgraceful and dangerous' warning.
39. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book I, 415.
Worth pointing out that the sort of issues Augustine was talking about here were ones subject to scientific measurement and calculation. Here is what Aquinas had to say.
"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." -
Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theological (1273).
Even Cardinal Bellarmine who opposed Galileo admitted the same thing:
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.[FONT="]
Cardinal Bellarmine, [/FONT]Letter to Foscarini,[FONT="] 1615 [/FONT].
Or as the famous mathematician and Christian, Pascal put it:
When we meet with a passage even in the Scripture, the literal meaning of which, at first sight, appears contrary to what the senses or reason are certainly persuaded of, we must not attempt to reject their testimony in this case, and yield them up to the authority of that apparent sense of the Scripture, but we must interpret the Scripture, and seek out therein another sense agreeable to that sensible truth.... And as Scripture may be interpreted in different ways, whereas the testimony of the senses is uniform, we must in these matters adopt as the true interpretation of Scripture that view which corresponds with the faithful report of the senses.
An opposite mode of treatment, so far from procuring respect to the Scripture, would only expose it to the contempt of infidels; because, as St. Augustine says, when they found that we believed, on the authority of Scripture, in things which they assuredly knew to be false, they would laugh at our credulity with regard to its more recondite truths, such as the resurrection of the dead and eternal life. And by this means, adds St. Thomas, we would render our religion contemptible in their eyes, and shut up its entrance into their minds.
Blaise Pascal, Provincial Letters, 1657
I'm gracious about doctrinal differences among christians. I'm a big believer in keeping unity in our differences. Where I draw the line is over doctrines that are fueled by unbelief rather than by textual disputes. Some may reject the virgin birth for the sake of science. Some deny the existence of Hell based on men's ideas of cruelty. Some deny the existence of Devil based on human philosophical reasoning and then change the meaning of the text to accommodate. Some don't like the biblical teachings on homosexuality, and therefore come up with all kinds of ways to justify it biblically. These are not merely differences of textual interpretation, but actual rebellion and unbelief. Those holding these views are not looking to God for answers, but transforming God's word into their words. While the early fathers had their faults, I don't see them as guilty of this type of rebellion. In fact I see a lot of wisdom in them.
BTW, just to be clear, I think Christ's death on the cross covers all men's rebellion, so I don't see the issues above as salvation threatening. Christ covered it all, but those rejecting God's word are missing out on a tremendous blessing.
I appreciate you realising Genesis is not a salvation issue, I think the difference between us here is I do not think it is a sin or rebellion honestly searching out the meaning of scripture.
