• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Augustine on allowing the evidence from nature to inform Biblical interpretation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have mentioned that Augustine, as one of his guidelines for interpreting Scripture, indicated that evidence from the natural world can and should inform our interpretation as one factor.

The following quote discusses this, and it is directly helpful, because it is discussing the creation story itself, using the creation of light on day one as an example.

Summary: when we read a particular text, often two people will agree that there is a particular spiritual or theological truth, based on our faith, but may differ as to whether a literal fact was meant as well. We should, then, agree on the theological truth. As for the material truth, there is nothing wrong with accepting this as well, unless and until there is evidence which shows that it can not be the true reading. When that happens, we know that the material interpretation was never part of Scripture to begin with.

This is from Book 1, Chapter 19 of his book on Genesis:
"38. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and light was made," one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of spiritual light in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until unerring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance. . . . "

In the very next paragraph, he goes on to discuss exactly WHY we should allow such evidence to cause us to let go of our material (literal) interpretations. And THIS is the point I have been making on these forums, Augustine could not have spoken more to the point of our current debate if he was here with us now:

"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 nonsense 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. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Next, he shows the proper humility about this interpretive process that we all can learn from, and he acknowledges that the writing of Genesis was NOT done with a meaning that was "obvious" or "plain". but instead was "obscure":

"40. With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. . . ."

Next, in Chapter 21, he states that if the scientist presents reliable evidence about nature, then we can be assured that it fits with what Scripture really says:

"When they [the unbeliever] are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture."

This is exactly what TE's do. We do not DENY the evidence when it is reliable, we show them how that it fits with Scripture, lest they attempt to use their evidence to disprove Scripture.

Lastly, St. Augustine discusses the other three factors to consider in interpretation: 1) the author's intent, 2) consistent with Scripture and faith, and 3) if these other two are not possible to determine, one that our faith demands.

"When we read the inspired books in the light of this wide variety of true doctrines which are drawn from a few words and founded on the firm basis of Catholic belief, let us choose that one which appears as certainly the meaning intended by the author. But if this is not clear, then at least we should choose an interpretation in keeping with the context of Scripture and in harmony with our faith. But if the meaning cannot be studied and judged by the context of Scripture, at least we should choose only that which our faith demands."

There are a couple of very important truths expounded here.

First, he acknowledges that often a wide variety of possible and arguable doctrines can come from a given text. This is contrary to the idea that the true meaning is always "obvious" or "plain".

Second, it is not always clear what the author intended!

Third, it may not even be possible to determine the meaning from the context of Scripture itself. This, then, is pointing to the fact that sometimes it is necessary to consider evidence and argument outside the Scripture.

Lastly, among competing interpretation, we should choose the one our faith demands. So, if I find the evidence against a literally historical reading of Genesis such that my faith demands a figurative reading, and it does not contradict the other factors, that is the one I must follow.

And I do.

As I have quoted elsewhere, Augustine also warns against the serious danger of reading a text literally that was meant to be read non-literally:

"At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: “for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth.” That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter" [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).

In the end, Augustine rejected the idea of a literal six day creation and believed that Creation occured in an instant, but that not all was immediately present. Instead, God planted "seminal seeds" within His Creation of many things that would develop later. As one writer summarized it:

Augustine saw three phases of creation: the "unchangeable forms in the Word of God," "seminal seeds" created in the instant of creation, and a later "springing forth" in the course of time.

Some get confused about what he actually believed, because he phrased it almost as obscurely as Genesis! He notes that the text discusses "six days" of creation (which is true, that IS what is in the text, the question is whether it is read literally or figuratively), then he mentions that the text also describes it as being made "all together". He then explains why the "six day" motif was there: for the benefit of the general readers' understanding of the process. He said that some might not be able to grasp the concept of God creating all things at the same time, so he chose to describe it instead as a step by step process, setting out the six figurative days.

Aquinas discussed Augustine's view of immediate creation, and contrasted it with other commentators view that the six days were literal. In his Summa, he said "So as not to prejudice either view, we must deal with the reasons for both."

In the words of Louis Berkhof, Augustine "was evidently inclined to think God created all things in a moment of time, and that the thought of days was simply introduced to aid the finite intelligence." Looking at Augustine's own words, taken from his Genesis commentary, we read, "In this narrative of creation Holy Scripture has said of the Creator that He completed His works in six days, and elsewhere, without contradicting this, it has been written of the same Creator that He created all things together . . . Why then was there any need for six distinct days to be set forth in the narrative one after the other? The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot understand the meaning of the Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step . . . For this Scripture text that narrates the works of God according to the days mentioned above, and that Scripture text that says God created all things together, are both true."

So, Augustine did not think the six days of Creation were historically literal, but they were still TRUE. And, again, this is what TE's say. We do not say that the six day narrative is false. It is true in the sense that it truly conveys what God intended it to convey, a method for us to grasp and hold on to the great truths of God's Creative work. If it is not MEANT to be literal history, then it is still TRUE even if it is not literal history.
 

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here is an additional paragraph that is, again, RIGHT on point. Remember, he is talking about reading the creation account here:

"37. In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture [and remember, he IS speaking of Genesis here], 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. "

I think this says it all perfectly. Let's see how it applies to the YEC position:

1. When Scriptures are not crystal clear (and he has already said Genesis in NOT), there are different interpretations which are possible.

2. We should NOT take a stand on one interpretation such that, if it was proved wrong, our faith would suffer (we have seen that some here on this forum and elsewhere DO think this way). And if we should not even privately hold to a particular interpretation in this fashion, we definitely should not be teaching it!

3. It points out that further search for truth CAN undermine a postion, which indicates that means, once again, that he believes we should factor in the evidence from nature to our interpretive process.

4. That holding tight to an interpretation in the face of the evidence is NOT to battle for the Holy Scripture, but for our personal interpretation. Rather, after taking all these interpretive factors into consideration (which includes evidence from nature), we should CONFORM our beliefs to that proper interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I have read most of the patristic writings, and have found that the ALL hold views that are unique in one way or another. But it would be incorrect to say that except for Augustine held literal, six 24 hour day viewpoints. The point really is that we should not be holding dogmatic views on these issues, and should be willing to consider all the available evidence as part of our interpretive process.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just one thing I want to clarify. The purpose of setting out what Augustine says on this issue is basically two-fold.

First, I simply think he has a excellent hermenuetical approach and terrific, well, attitude, about this issue. This does not mean that I necessarily ascribe to the conclusions he reached using this hermenuetic or the conclusions he reached on every area of theology.

Second, it is important to see that this approach to interpreting Scripture is NOT something new and recent and (more sinister) developed to counter evolutionary thought. It was one approach from the very earliest days of the Church.
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
If I may, I would like to add something to this.

In De Genesi ad literam, Augustine does an exegensis of Genesis' creation account, literally. He does so in a 12 book span based on his beliefs. This stated in the confessions and letters by Augustine.

His confessions also talk his belief in a literal fall of mankind where sin entered into this world.

Augustine stays consistent (whether with his six day belief or an instantaneous one) with the Psalmists teachings that when God speaks it is done now.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, Augustine believed that when God spoke, the whole shebang was created in an instant, but that not all was present at the beginning. He believed that a great deal of what was created was simply embedded in the process as "seminal seeds" which would come to fruition when the time was right. Kind of like a certain theory YEC seem to despise so much.

But, this is not about Augustine's actual belief, what he actually concluded, but his hermenuetical approach. He insisted that we be willing to hold our beliefs in the "non-theological" aspects of Genesis only tenatively and let it be guided by scientific evidence to the extent such evidence was sound. This means that he would have continued to consider the new scientific evidence, tested it to see if it was sound, and if it was, he would have determined how Scripture and that evidence fit together in a way that works. But even then, that conclusion would only be held tentatively due to the limitations of our knowledge.

The essential thing is his starting point. He admits right up front that the Creation accounts are not clear, they are subject to different interpretations, and we should not hold so tightly to any particular belief that is not essential for salvation, since we can be wrong. This type of humbleness would prevent anyone from insisting that their understanding was THE correct one, without doubt and that the text as "clear" or "obvious". And it definitely would prevent anyone from insisting that their interpretation was SO conclusive that if it was not correct, Scripture would have to be deemed false.
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
I don't have anything against his hermenuetical approach. You have misrespresented him though. He continually said Scripture should be over everything, and if contradiciton seems to exist, Scripture should always be held in authority. One the quotes by him that I like concerning creation is:

"the Scripture . . . has paramount authority, . . . to which we yield assent in all matters. That God made the world, we can believe from no one more safely than from God Himself."

On the age of man Augustine wrote:

"Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been . . . . And when they are asked, how, . . . they reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and . . . thus there was at intervals a new beginning made. . . . But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived . . . by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed"

Would you like to correct Augustine on his belief that Scripture teaches a global flood?

If you have read or read City of God, you might get a clearer understanding of what Augustine actually believed on these matters.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is not a matter of what Augustine actually believed. It is a matter of how he approached Scripture. The point is that he accepted that such conclusions about things in Genesis would have to be revised or reconsidered based on what the evidence from science indicates. So, that is what he would do now as well. There was no reason at the time for him NOT to believe in an earth older than 6,000 years or to deny a global flood.

The first step for him, though, which YEC's seem to refuse to take, is to say that the Scripture is NOT crystal clear, and that no one should cling to their interpretations the way YEC's do.

It is these issues which are important, what his hermenuetical approach was, not what he concluded based on his limited information at the time.
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican

For one, thank you for admitting that you don't really care what Augustine actually believed.

Look to his works in City of God, he didn't just express his beliefs, he refuted those who believed differently. Are you aware of why Augustine believed the earth was no older than 5600 years old during his lifetime? Are you aware why all the Church Fathers believed the earth was young?

Augustine never allowed science to be the one that told him what Scripture said. He has plainly and consistently said that Scripture is the authority in all matters. Greeks tried to use the same ideas that science uses today and calls science. All of the Church Fathers came out in opposition to them and we can see Paul doing the same.

What should really be being asked here is, do you care about searching for correct theology? Do you even care what the Church Fathers strived so hard for in developing the Church? Do you even care about Paul's position on this philosophical idea that the earth is old and it produced life, not God by ex nihilo?

You are not the first to try and push this thought of evolution, old earth, local flood, figurative tower of babel, etc. These are deeply rooted in the Greeks, which the Church argued against.

Again, it is telling when you say you don't care what Augustine actually believed.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think we should look to the Church Fathers to determine a lot of things, but definitely not take their conclusions as Gospel. Since they would have no idea about the evidence for the age of the earth, I am sure Augustine believed in a young earth. But his hermenuetical approach to Scripture shows how he would treat new scientific information as it arose, and how he would allow that to impact his reading of Scripture. The fact that, based on the information he had, he decided that earth was young, and even defended that position based on the evidence at the time, is basically irrelevant for two reasons:

1. He indicated that ALL such conclusions should be held tentatively and with a willingness to revise as needed (see the OP, which states this clearly more than once)

2. He indicated that he would allow his conclusions to be influenced by scientific evidence to the extent he found the evidence valid.

So, the position he actually came to then would have been tentative, and based on consistency with what the natural evidence was telling him as well. Since the natual world can tell us a lot more now, following his own guidlelines would mean he would consider this new information and be willing to allow that to influence, or inform, his reading of Genesis.

There is no guarantee what he would conclude now, but the fact that he would allow the natural evidence to be a factor in his interpretation is a pretty good indication . . .
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
Vance said:
I think we should look to the Church Fathers to determine a lot of things, but definitely not take their conclusions as Gospel.

Who is taking them as if they themselves bring the salvation?

Vance said:
Since they would have no idea about the evidence for the age of the earth, I am sure Augustine believed in a young earth.

Evidence says nothing. It is the interpretation of scientists that say what you believe which come from philosophical idea's. Again, have you known a rock to get up and tell you its history?

They didn't need to know what modern man says. They knew then what modern man was saying in Greece, which is the same as what you claim today. And they refuted it, including Augustine.

Vance said:
But his hermenuetical approach to Scripture shows how he would treat new scientific information as it arose, and how he would allow that to impact his reading of Scripture.

Yes, he would look at what is said and then look at what the Bible says and if he found conflict, he would go with the Bible everytime. Your insistance that he would override Biblical teaching and change his interpretation because of today's modern teachings fly's in the face of what he did during his lifetime. In his lifetime he refuted the modern teachings of the earth being old, local flood, tower of babel not being historical, and the philosophical view of evolution.

He did so based soley on Scripture because of what Scripture says. Augustine and all the other church fathers agreed that in such cases where modern philosophy and teachings conflict with the Bible, the Bible must be the authority in all matters.


He never stated that Biblical teachings need to be held tentatively. He further DID state that the Bible is the Authority in ALL matters. Secondly, your comments in the OP have been taken out of context and do not represent Augustine in how he believed and viewed Biblical teachings.

Even if he allowed evidence to override Biblical teachings, that evidence would have to be beyond conclusive, which today's is not. It is the interpretation is repeated over and over until the masses follow the philosophical ideals of the scientists putting them forth.


The natural world doesn't tell us anymore than it did 2000 years ago. The natural world doesn't say anything. Do you believe in some fairy tale that the dirt and rocks actually talk and tell their history? No. It is the interpretations that are put forth that try and say what they think evidence says. This is based on their world views.

Again, Augustine would take the Bible as the Authority in ALL matters.

Vance said:
There is no guarantee what he would conclude now, but the fact that he would allow the natural evidence to be a factor in his interpretation is a pretty good indication . . .

There is a guarantee. Augustine and the Church Fathers would believe today that the Bible is still the Authority in ALL matters. Evidence says nothing. Scientists interpret that evidence to say what coincides with their own world views.
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
50
✟16,155.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
Vance said:
SBG, I will gladly let your last post stand as a good representation of your position, and let the OP speak for itself. MORE than glad, actually, since I think your post shows the unreasonableness of your position.

Sounds good. And if anyone is actually interested in what the Church Fathers truly say, let me know. I have just pm me, I have just about all of their works here.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.