St. Augustine on allowing science to inform how we read Scripture

[Risen from the Dust]

I'm not trying to decide anything for you, but I'm just saying that based on St. Augustine's favorable opinion of science in general I think he would have found evolution and natural selection compatible with Christianity, regardless of whether he would actually accept it as correct.

Fair enough then.

If I'm understanding you correctly, that's basically what I concluded too -- that the theory of evolution would have been considered by St. Augustine as one of two extremely valid possibilities that could explain our origins.

In short, it seems to me that he would keep his mind open to both gradual creation (by natural selection) and specific creation (instantaneous miracles) and try to blend the two theories so as to be in harmony with the Scriptural record.

However, if he were to lean in favor of one theory more than that other (such as either natural selection or instantaneous miracles), I do think that he would have expressed some concern against the least favorable explanation and expressed it as some form of "translational idolatry" or "scientific idolatry" -- whichever one he felt applied.

Although he was open to a variety of hermeneutics, his words could nonetheless often be very harsh against other's opinions when he didn't agree with them -- which is a method that I'd rather not use.

 

[Vance]

Right, I think he would take the position that we may not know for sure, but IF evolutionary development occured the way science says, then it was the result of the work of God, and it will agree with Scripture if both are properly read. Knowing Augustine, he would then attempt to show one way (or maybe more than one way) this harmony could exist. I think he would hold BOTH the scientific concept AND the specific exegesis as tentative and only with the degree of weight or certitude justified by all the relevant factors.

For such a great thinker, it Augustine's humbleness in these matters, his recognition of the depth of meaning in the text and our own limited ability to grasp the things of God, that is most impressive to me, and what I think should be our guiding light. The sheer dogmatism of interpretation we see from the Creationists (in general) that I find the most troubling.

 

[aboutface]

All this may be true but if natural selection is the order of the day then it leaves us with a big pile of bones ( death) before sin entered the world. Not quite what the bible says is it!

 

[raphael_aa]

All this may be true but if natural selection is the order of the day then it leaves us with a big pile of bones ( death) before sin entered the world. Not quite what the bible says is it!

Unless the Bible is using a metaphor for spiritual death.

 

[jjdoe]

I very much enjoy reading your posts Risen from the Dust and Vance. In fact, they have been keeping me away from doing my lab assignments.

 

[aboutface]

Unless the Bible is using a metaphor for spiritual death.

Possible but not probable. Why would such a fuss be made then about using animal skins to cover their nakedness, or was this a metaphorical animal skin?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Possible but not probable. Why would such a fuss be made then about using animal skins to cover their nakedness, or was this a metaphorical animal skin?

Where does the Bible make a fuss over animal skins?

 

[MartinM]

Possible but not probable. Why would such a fuss be made then about using animal skins to cover their nakedness, or was this a metaphorical animal skin?

Nice job of using a literal interpretation to support a literal interpretation.

Obviously, if Genesis is meant to be read allegorically, then the use of animal skins could indeed be metaphorical.

 

[raphael_aa]

Possible but not probable. Why would such a fuss be made then about using animal skins to cover their nakedness, or was this a metaphorical animal skin?

Consider Greek myths. They're full of convincing detail and yet no one is saying they literally happened. Nevertheless they are ful of great insight (truth) that is universal and enduring. These are the characteristics of the genre of myth.

 

[aboutface]

reading between the lines, and making the rather obvious conclusion. In order to obtain a rabbit skin one must first kill the rabbit. Unless you are macabre in the extreme.
This then is the first recorded death. Remember that death entered the world as the wages of sin? So you have a very literal death for what you claim to be an allegorical death. I think that the point is made!

 

[raphael_aa]

reading between the lines, and making the rather obvious conclusion. In order to obtain a rabbit skin one must first kill the rabbit. Unless you are macabre in the extreme.
This then is the first recorded death. Remember that death entered the world as the wages of sin? So you have a very literal death for what you claim to be an allegorical death. I think that the point is made!

Welcome to forums but actually your point is not made since you disregarded everything I said in the last post. All myths are narratives. All narratives contain details to make them interesting. The details do not have to be literally true. To show your interpretation is correct you would have to give me evidence that there was a time on earth when nothing died. Likewise if I was going to claim the Pandora myth was true, I'd have to prove that hope was an object with wings capable of being held in a box.

 

[MartinM]

So you have a very literal death for what you claim to be an allegorical death. I think that the point is made!

What point? 'It is literal! It is, it is, it IS!', by any chance?

 

[Vance]

What point? 'It is literal! It is, it is, it IS!', by any chance?

This, combined alternately with "LA, LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

 

[aboutface]

Welcome to forums but actually your point is not made since you disregarded everything I said in the last post. All myths are narratives. All narratives contain details to make them interesting. The details do not have to be literally true. To show your interpretation is correct you would have to give me evidence that there was a time on earth when nothing died. Likewise if I was going to claim the Pandora myth was true, I'd have to prove that hope was an object with wings capable of being held in a box.

So then Genesis by your admission is a myth? Is that how you view what God has said is His Holy and inspired Word, it is just a myth? Jesus is just a myth too? or is that part of scripture real, and the rest false?
Small wonder Jesus marvelled at Peter when he started to slip under the waters surface. After all it is impossible to walk on water, or to feed five thousand people with just five loaves and two fishes. And the bush Moses saw? It wasn't really burning, just a bad case of tequila, right?
And maybe God didn't give him the 10 commandments so we can say that that is a myth too. Oh dear isn't our Holy Book starting to look as if it just a whole pile of fairy stories made up to keep the kiddies away from strange talking bushes, ( sorry that is a teeny weeny bit facetious) and to frighten them into doing what their parents tell them to do.?
Come on now, fess up to what you truly believe. Either the Bible is as it claims, authored and inspired by the Holy Spirit, or it isn't. If you take the former view, then there is no allegory, if you take the latter, well I guess you already have me labelled and boxed as a fundy. Go right ahead if it makes you feel happy to think of me that way. I don't care. Why don't I care? Because you dear and beloved reader, are merely human. You are not God. You do not know,, and I do not know. But I can read in my own language what God intended for all to be able to read. It is just there in black and white and in some versions red too. No need to "decipher " it. Just read the words.
Stop trying to use man originated philosophy to understand God originated language.
Love to you all, and peace In the Name of Christ.

 

[raphael_aa]

So then Genesis by your admission is a myth? Is that how you view what God has said is His Holy and inspired Word, it is just a myth? Jesus is just a myth too? or is that part of scripture real, and the rest false?
Small wonder Jesus marvelled at Peter when he started to slip under the waters surface. After all it is impossible to walk on water, or to feed five thousand people with just five loaves and two fishes. And the bush Moses saw? It wasn't really burning, just a bad case of tequila, right?
And maybe God didn't give him the 10 commandments so we can say that that is a myth too. Oh dear isn't our Holy Book starting to look as if it just a whole pile of fairy stories made up to keep the kiddies away from strange talking bushes, ( sorry that is a teeny weeny bit facetious) and to frighten them into doing what their parents tell them to do.?
Come on now, fess up to what you truly believe. Either the Bible is as it claims, authored and inspired by the Holy Spirit, or it isn't. If you take the former view, then there is no allegory, if you take the latter, well I guess you already have me labelled and boxed as a fundy. Go right ahead if it makes you feel happy to think of me that way. I don't care. Why don't I care? Because you dear and beloved reader, are merely human. You are not God. You do not know,, and I do not know. But I can read in my own language what God intended for all to be able to read. It is just there in black and white and in some versions red too. No need to "decipher " it. Just read the words.
Stop trying to use man originated philosophy to understand God originated language.
Love to you all, and peace In the Name of Christ.

Yes, Genisis is a myth. It is a myth that teaches us much about God and His relationship to His people.

We all interpret text. You interpret text. I assume you don't actually think Jesus wanted you to hate your parents, or tear off your arm. You have bought into the post-enlightenment idea that mere historocity is the only kind of truth that counts. This is a NEW way of reading scripture that does not match the intent of the authors (who were not God BTW). You assume that God is so dull that He can't tell stories, sing songs, write poetry. Your view of God is a bored history professor.


Just as an aside, what evidence do you have that the language of scripture comes from God?

 

[Vance]

BTW, "myth" does not mean what it is generally taken to mean in common parlance. Myth, in ancient cultures, could still be considered very TRUE and REAL. Not at all just a story or somehow less valid or "actual".

I believe that the Genesis Creation accounts are very true and real, but that it was told in a figurative literary style, not in strict literal historical narrative.

 

[aboutface]

Fair enough Vance. Re: your explanation of "myth". However the niggling thought remains;
If God did indeed use evolution in order for man to actually get to where he is now, and has been for a couple of millenia (roughly 3 ) then what does that really mean?
If you look at the hard truth of it it means that death and corruption, ( yes I do include that because dead things rot as we all know.) were considered by God to be good.
If you don't believe that to be the case then look at what God said about all He had made, prior to the introduction of sin into the world. Which happened after mankind came into existance. Had to, because God created monkey in His image didn't He? No He did not, God created amoeba in His image didn't He? No He did not. God created Man in His image. And scripture teaches us that man sinned, not monkeys and certainly not amoeba.
I am certain
From
raphael_aa vbmenu_register("postmenu_15068176", true);
Wild eyed liberal
"I assume you don't actually think Jesus wanted you to hate your parents, or tear off your arm."
Well in a manner of speaking yes I do. If my arm, continues to cause me to draw away from God and from relationship with Him it is indeed profitable for it to be rent from my body and left to rot, and as far as hating my parents, comparitively. If my love for my parents is such that when compared to my love for God it does not seem that I hate them, then I love them too much, or God not enough.
"You have bought into the post-enlightenment idea that mere historocity is the only kind of truth that counts."
History is reality. Did the massacre of Jews during ww2 actually happen? some people say it is a lie.
" This is a NEW way of reading scripture that does not match the intent of the authors "
And you know this how?
"(who were not God BTW)."
The Nicenes would disagree and so do I, "All scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit"
Is the Holy Spirit then not God?
" You assume that God is so dull that He can't tell stories, sing songs, write poetry. Your view of God is a bored history professor.
I assume no such thing. Your view of God's power and abilities are limited by your total faith that science can't be wrong. God operates in a dimension that excludes Him from having to do things "scientifically". You see He created it and told it what to do. It does not tell Him what is or can be or should be, otherwise, and I think I repeat myself, 5000 people would have gone hungry, Mary would never have given birth to Jesus, the bush would have been destroyed. The list of "miraculous" occurences throughout history would be severly shortened to the point of non-existance.
As for my view of God being a bored history professor, Pah! Go read the Bible. There is plenty of excitement, horror, thriller writings in there to keep even the hardest to please imagination entertained. Open your eyes. Women driving tent pegs through mens heads, this is boring? The hunt for David throughout the land of Israel, This is boring? or is it that these things aren't history? are they more narratives just trying to get across a good moral point.
Love to you all in Christ Jesus, born Mary who was a virgin, Son of God, Creator of all that is seen and unseen.

 

[Vance]

About Face:

Our ways are not God's ways. Death and corruption are not evil. They are not sin. Sin and evil are disobedience, selfishness, rejection of God. And this could not happen until God did whatever He did to make us "Mankind". Animals can not sin. Once God made us "in His image" and we were able to choose to obey or not, then we had the opportunity to sin. Now, what actually happened at the time this happened, I don't know. But I think this is what God meant when He described Himself "breathing" life into Adam (which could be a symbol for Mankind).

When Mankind chose disobedience, spiritual death (separation from full communion with God) was the result.

I really think this fits much better theologically, not just with the evidence we have from God's creation itself.

 

[aboutface]

Good thought, although death is not something God originally had in the plan. Scripture does directly tell us that death entered the world through sin and the wages of sin is death. It was not there in the beginning. The idea was there, because God told Adam, and by inference Eve, that in the day that they ate of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden then they would surely die, but as you know, we all do the things we are told not to do.

 

[Vance]

Good thought, although death is not something God originally had in the plan. Scripture does directly tell us that death entered the world through sin and the wages of sin is death. It was not there in the beginning. The idea was there, because God told Adam, and by inference Eve, that in the day that they ate of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden then they would surely die, but as you know, we all do the things we are told not to do.

What type of death did they suffer "on that very day"?

Not physical death, we can see that since they lived many, many "days" after that. They did suffer spiritual death on that very day, though. Separation from God.