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

[Risen from the Dust]

St. Augustine, in both contrast and harmony to the Socratic position, seems to be discussing
"articles of faith" as relayed within the Scriptural account that pertain to the most extreme limits of
what science can ascertain. This is to say, the extents of what is described in Genesis may apply
to both the spiritual and the physical to point that it can be very difficult to discern which realm is
specifically implied. Perhaps both are implied. Then again, perhaps only one is implied. Either way
one reads it, something has definitely been implied by God through the prophets he chose to
record his words.

For they say,

"Though these things be true, yet did not Moses intend those two, when, by revelation of the Spirit, he said, In the beginning God created heaven and earth. He did not under the name of heaven, signify that spiritual or intellectual creature which always beholds the face of God; nor under the name of earth, that formless matter."

"What then?"

"That man of God," say they, "meant as we say, this declared he by those words."

"What?"

"By the name of heaven and earth would he first signify," say they, "universally and compendiously, all this visible world; so as afterwards by the enumeration of the several days, to arrange in detail, and, as it were, piece by piece, all those things, which it pleased the Holy Ghost thus to enounce. For such were that rude and carnal people to which he spake, that he thought them fit to be entrusted with the knowledge of such works of God only as were visible."

They agree, however, that under the words earth invisible and without form, and that darksome deep (out of which it is subsequently shown, that all these visible things which we all know, were made and arranged during those "days") may, not incongruously, be understood of this formless first matter.

What now if another should say that

"this same formlessness and confusedness of matter, was for this reason first conveyed under the name of heaven and earth, because out of it was this visible world with all those natures which most manifestly appear in it, which is ofttimes called by the name of heaven and earth, created and perfected?"

What again if another say that

"invisible and visible nature is not indeed inappropriately called heaven and earth; and so, that the universal creation, which God made in His Wisdom, that is, in the Beginning, was comprehended under those two words?

Notwithstanding, since all things be made not of the substance of God, but out of nothing (because they are not the same that God is, and there is a mutable nature in them all, whether they abide, as doth the eternal house of God, or be changed, as the soul and body of man are): therefore the common matter of all things visible and invisible (as yet unformed though capable of form), out of which was to be created both heaven and earth (i. the invisible and visible creature when formed), was entitled by the same names given to the earth invisible and without form and the darkness upon the deep, but with this distinction, that by the earth invisible and without form is understood corporeal matter, antecedent to its being qualified by any form; and by the darkness upon the deep, spiritual matter, before it underwent any restraint of its unlimited fluidness, or received any light from Wisdom?"

It yet remains for a man to say, if he will, that

"the already perfected and formed natures, visible and invisible, are not signified under the name of heaven and earth, when we read, In the beginning God made heaven and earth, but that the yet unformed commencement of things, the stuff apt to receive form and making, was called by these names, because therein were confusedly contained, not as yet distinguished by their qualities and forms, all those things which being now digested into order, are called Heaven and Earth, the one being the spiritual, the other the corporeal, creation."

To the extent that the physicial sciences can decisively test something, we, like St. Augustine,
should not hesitate to embrace it as a truth. In this sense, the gentile nations often seem to also
reflect -- albeit imperfectly -- a natural knowledge of God through their knowledge of nature.
However, even though some passages of Scripture are naturally apprehended even by the pagans,
the revelation of truth found within the Scriptural record should not be compromised by science to
the extent that failures within one's scientific reasoning leads to a loss of one's faith in Christ.

This is to say, he seems to be implying that some passages of Scripture may simply be beyond our
ability to fully grasp -- that, even though a partial understanding of God can be seen in nature, the
fullness of revelation (including the precise details, time-lines, and mechanisms God employed on a
supernatural level) could very well lie outside the reaches of the scientific method.

Admittedly, as noted above within this discussion, there is much overlap between the spiritual and
the physical mechanisms suggested for material existence to be happening. However, specifically,
as he himself admits, he is discussing 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]..."
in order to demonstrate that "...different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice
to the faith we have received."

 

[Risen from the Dust]

On the other hand, it needs to be remembered that the "science" of St. Augustine's time could also be considered highly illogical by today's standards, often incorporating elements of pantheism and/or astrology to account for processes that have natural explanations.

For example, Thales, according to what is related of him, seems to have regarded the soul as something endowed with the power of motion, if indeed he said that the loadstone has a soul because it moves iron.

In this sense, St. Augustine seems to have grasped a great insight into the minds of future scientists, such as Francis Bacon, that specifically tested the material world via physics in order to discern the natural beauty of God's creation.

Perhaps one of the best known of these scientists which believed that the Scriptures should motivate their thoughts on science was Robert Boyle. As many here probably know, Boyle was a devout Christian and an enthusiastic student of the Scriptures. In the year before his death in 1691, Boyle published an important work he called The Christian Virtuoso. In this book he
explained that the study and dominion of nature is a duty given to man by God. His basis for this was the command given in Genesis 1:28, where God the Creator blessed the first man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the Earth and subdue it, and to rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the Earth.

In his lectures and many writings, Robert Boyle showed that science and faith in God can exist side by side. He praised his Creator for all the scientific discoveries he had made, and urged others to do likewise. He recognized that the universe works in accordance with the laws of nature which God established for its order and control. He most often wrote to show that the
study of nature was a central religious duty. This is to say, he likened the universe to a piece of machinery set in motion by God, and argued that studying the principles of its operation was a religious duty. Even still, he was not a strict mechanist with respect to behavior since he believed in an incorporeal soul that did not follow strict physical laws.

As was mentioned earlier, in the sense of scientists like Boyle or Bacon that possessed a Christian mind-set, they engaged the world via the scientific method not so much to diminish God's glory. Rather, in removing the idols of "alchemy" and "astrology" and "animism" from scientific methodology, they were able to give greater glory to God as creator. In their view, the ordered
consistency of the universe -- created by God but showing the effects of the fall -- led them to adopt the view of science that a reasonable god created a reasonable universe with consistency in the way the cosmos functioned. IN this sense, particularly in the case of Boyle, an experiment done one day should bring about the same results the next day.

The influence of astrology in regards to concepts of creation should not be overlooked at this point. Neither should the intermeshing of astrological thinking with eschatological expectations of the parousia be overlooked either. In both cases, the proclamations made by those who held these views tended to espouse their ideas with "mathematical precision" in order to present them as something "scientific" to those who doubted them.

Within both these cases, observations of the material world, such as the positioning of the planets or behavior of divers animals, were often "interpreted" to have some "spiritual significance". Although I will discuss these ideas in more detail below, it should be briefly noted that those Christians who upheld these views were often considered an "embarrassment" to the faith they were apparently striving so hard to defend. It is something which St. Augustine addresses periodically -- and something which he believes brings great dirision to the church when Christians speak of such things.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

First, here is a text from his commentary on Genesis that discusses the interpretation
process generally. Keep in mind that he is talking about reading the creation account here:

And what exactly about creation is he discussing here -- the necessity of believing that the days of
creation were literally 24 hour periods of time?

Like St. Augustine, I do not personally believe that the days of creation were literally 24 hour
periods of time -- just to be clear on the matter.

"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. "

Again, to reemphasize this, to the extent that the physicial sciences can decisively test something,
we should not hesitate to embrace it as a truth. In this sense, the gentile nations often seem to also
reflect -- albeit imperfectly -- a natural knowledge of God through their knowledge of nature.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine
nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are
without excuse.

Romans 1:20

However, as noted above, even though some passages of Scripture are naturally apprehended
even by the pagans, the revelation of truth found within the Scriptural record should not be
compromised by science to the extent that failures within one's scientific reasoning leads to a loss
of one's faith in Christ.

Or, as St. Augustine says, "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.

I think it's a good starting point. But I do not believe that it covers it all.

Let's see how it applies to the YEC position:

How does this apply to old earth and gap theories?

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

Certainly there are different interpretations possible. In light of the fact that we are unsure as to
exactly what is being stated within the Genesis account, different interpretations are almost
necessary until such time that a proper spiritual dialectic governed by the Holy Spirit can resolve
all the apparent contradictions clearly.

Yet, even still, most will admit that the prophets of old did not write according to men's
interpretations -- they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit with the specific goal of
revealing Christ in many divers ways to the reader. In fact, a considerable amount of time was
spent by the early church in order to spot Christ's presense "concealed" within the Hebrew
Scriptures.

While I agree that individual interpretations are possible -- and that they sometimes benefit the
readers who interpret the Scripture in a certain individual way -- I would be wary of agreeing that
a hard to understand portion of Scripture necessarily implies that multiple interpretations are
acceptable on all levels of Scriptural reading. It could also simply mean that the person reading the
Scriptural passage in question simply doesn't understand it.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

In the former case, I think of a woman interviewed who was once addicted to crack cocaine. On
the streets where she dwelled the drug was often called the "rock". After struggling for a long time
with this addiction, she, after receiving the Bible as a gift, opened the Scriptures directly to
1 Samuel 2:2. Upon reading "There is no one holy like the LORD ; there is no one besides you;
there is no Rock like our God.", she immediately felt moved by the Holy Spirit to give up her
addiction and change her life for the better. Although the similarities of the title "rock"
employed in the street lingo for crack cocaine bore absolutely no resemblance to the "Rock" implied
within the Hebrew Scriptural passage, the connotation of the drug she was using to a "false god"
in contrast to the "True God" was apparently sufficient for the Holy Spirit to move upon her
and separate her from her alkaloid idol.

Admittedly, not all people would read the Scriptural passage she found and compare it to crack
cocaine. This was clearly an individual interpretation that very few people would automatically
identify with without a clearer explanation or similar personal experience. However, in her own
personal experience, this "individual interpretation" proved sufficient to change her life for the
better and lead her to Christ in the process.

In the latter case, I think of the account of the resurrection of Christ. In this regard, there is really
no room for debate. For example, Paul clearly says, "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then
not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so
is your faith."

It is interesting to note that nowhere in the Scriptures is there said something to the effect of, "If
there was no literal six days of creation, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has
not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Likewise, it is also interesting to note that nowhere in the Scriptures is there said something to the
effect of, "If evening and morning do not imply literal 24 hour days, then not even Christ has been
raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

My point is this: believing that God created the entire universe in six literal days as experienced in
our "real time" simply does not seem to be factor that the early apostle's were overly concerned
with. True. Some of the early fathers did address this. However, other early fathers did not.
Admittedly, that the creation actually took place is a given. Likewise, many Scriptures seem to
indicate that the creation was literally made out of nothing -- and the apostle's seem to have
recorded many miracles by Christ which seem to attest to this power.

The question that remains for later generations of Christians to ponder is whether the creation was
rather instantanious or whether it occured over time. Likewise, were the animals and all other life
on earth form instantaniously as they were intended to be and then allowed to evolve -- or where
they created via evolutionary processes over longer periods and brought to their fullness in God's
time?

It yet remains the task of creationist/theistic evolutionist dialogues to discern if the creation account
is an example of the former crack cocaine example, the latter necessary Christ's raising from the
dead example, both, or perhaps neither -- and what harm (if any at all) could result from holding
to any of these positions (or varieties thereof).

 

[Risen from the Dust]

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).

But doesn't this render a person's faith unfalsifiable?

Saint Paul, in contrast to this position, quite clearly exhorts us to test all things and hold on to that
which is good. He also quite clearly warns us not to despise prophecy -- and neither to put out
the spirit's fire.

I suppose whenever the concept of falsification comes up, one always tends to invoke Popper.
Interestingly enough, I think many of his thoughts can be applied here. That Popper disdained
Freud's and Marx's thought processes is a given. However, why his disdain for their philosophies
was so strong, some do not really think about -- he gives us an almost indispensible starting point
for understanding the difference between science and psuedoscience.

Popper spent his formative years in early twentieth century Vienna -- where intellectual life was
dominated by science-based ideologies like Marxism and the psychoanalytic schools of Freud
and Adler. These were widely accepted as legitimate branches of natural science, and they
attracted large followingsamong intellectuals because they appeared to have such immense
explanatory power.

Acceptance of either Marxism or psychoanalysis had, as Popper observed, the effect of an
intellectual conversion or revelation, oppening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not
initiated. Once your eyes were thus openned, you saw confirming instances everywhere -- the
world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it.

In this sense, the truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want
to see the manifest truth. They refused to see it either because it was against their class interest, or
because of their repressions which were still 'un-analyzed' and crying aloud for treatment.

For example, a Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming
evidence for his interpretation of hsitory. This not only happened in the news, but also in its
presentation -- which revealed the class bias of the paper -- and especially of course in what the
paper did not say. If wages fell this was because the capitalists were exploting the workers, just as
Marx predicted they would. If wages rose this was because the capitalists were trying to save a
rotten system with bribery, which was also what Marx predicted.

In a similar manner, the Fruedian analysis emphasized that their theories were constantly verified
by their 'clinical observations'. A psychoanalyst could explain why a man would commit murder --
or, with equal facility, why the same man would sacrifice his own life to save another.

Popper effectively saw that a theory that appaears to explain everything actually explains nothing.
According to him, a theory with genuine explanatory power makes risky predictions -- which
excludes most possible outcomes. Success in prediction, within this sense, is impressive only to
the extent that failure was a real possibility.

In stating this, I must confess that I feel that both creationists (including myself) and theistic
evolutionists are both guilty of this to some extent. I think concepts like these, on some levels
anyway, are what St. Augustine was discoursing through his search into the Scriptures.

I will address this more below.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

And if we should not even privately hold to a particular interpretation in this fashion, we
definitely should not be teaching it!

And I think there is some truth to this -- to the extent that perhaps one should be careful before
expressing their faith as something which has been scientifically tested. Even if one is persecuted
for their faith and they endure many hardships for Christ (one of the truest refinements that God
allows to happen), this does not necessarily imply that their view of creation is the correct one. It
appears to simply means that their faith is strong in Christ.

I suppose God could line up all the creationists and theistic evolutionists in the world and put them
them through a rigorous and intense test of faith -- even to the point of martyrdom if necessary. If
perhaps, after being tested, there is a higher statistical analysis found where (on average) more of
one type of Christian endures hardship better than another type of Christian, perhaps then there
would be some possibly conclusive evidence that one type is truer to God than another. Maybe
something like this will happen during the apocalypse -- though I suspect it might have not much to
do with "individual interpretations" of Genesis.

Aside from this, barring revelation, I suppose the scientific method is still the best method for
determining knowledge of the physical mechanisms which drive the universe. In this regard, by
default, the creationist is sorely lacking -- since most of their reasoning appears to come by faith
even when evidence may be presented which contradicts their faith.

In addition to this, the creationist often seems to have to resort to poking holes in theories that
may contradict their belief. Aside from chronobiological activity, evidence of a universe created ex
nihilo, and supposed gaps in the fossil record -- there is very little in the form of science that a
creationist can point to scientifically to counter the evolutionary view of our origins. I know of no
modern day creation scientist that actually contributes to the scientific community on a serious
economic level based solely on their "fact" that the universe is 10,000 to 6,000 years old. Their
goal seems to simply be to refute evolutionary theories.

It seems to me that Mendel might be the only one who might even remotely be called a scientific
creationist -- a person who actually conducted scientific experiments on a biological level to
ascertain qualities of creation that God set in motion. I use the term "creationist" very loosely here
since Mendel was first and foremost a devout Catholic. He even read Darwin's book and scribed
in comments as he felt appropriate. In addition to this, Mendel sent Darwin Mendel's own book
accompanied by a letter asking questions in regards to evolutionary theory. Darwin never read it
-- and only later, when Synthesis theories were developed, were Mendel's contributions to
biology taken seriously.

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

Yes. But there are limits to what St. Augustine would allow science to override in regards to what
was divinely revealed. He would also question the mindset of the theorists who boldly or cunningly
employ science to "prove" their own philosophical mindset.

The science of dystelology, for example, a discipline employed by both Gould and Dawkins
primarily aimed at disproving that an intelligence designer was as work in the evolution of life on
earth, would most certainly be rejected by St. Augustine. If I'm correct in supposing that St.
Augustine would reject it, I'm almost 100% sure that he would reject this "science" in favor of the
Scriptural record.

I'll discuss this more below as applicable.

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.

And this may be ultimately true. However, at least in the minds of many, holding to certain
interpretations of Scriptures are their way of remaining true to God. In doing this, they believe that
"more evidence" is forthcoming -- that it is a matter of faith that God will someday settle at the
appropriate time. This is true of both creationists and theistic evolutionists.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Expressed simply, many people feel that they are trusting the testimony of people who actually
existed -- people who have proven modern researchers wrong before.

For example, in the past detractors often accused Isaiah of having made a historical mistake when
he wrote of Sargon as king of Assyria within the Scriptural record found in Isaiah 20:1. For years,
in fact, this remained the sole historical reference -- secular or biblical -- to Sargon having been
linked with the Assyrian nation. Due to this lack of evidence, many critics assumed Isaiah had
simply erred in his account of history.

However, in 1843, Paul Emile Botta, the French consular agent at Mosul, working with Austen
Layard, unearthed historical evidence that established Sargon as having been exactly what Isaiah
said he was -- king of the Assyrians.

At Khorsabad, Botta discovered Sargon’s palace. Pictures of the find may be found in Halley’s
Bible Handbook (1962, p. 289). Apparently, from what scholars have been able to piece
together from archaeological and historical records, Sargon made his capital successively at
Ashur, Calah, Nineveh, and finally at Khorsabad, where his palace was constructed in the closing
years of his reign during c. 706 B.C. The walls of the palace were actually adorned quite
intricately with ornate text that described the events of his reign.

Today, an artifact from the palace — a forty-ton stone bull (slab) — is on display at the
University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute -- which is quite a “weightly” evidence of Sargon’s
existence. Within this "historical sense", Isaiah had been correct all along -- and, likewise, the
critics who often derided his account in the Scriptures had been wrong -- all along.

Although there are other examples that I could point out, I think this simple example demonstrates
the mindset of many Christians that hold to a more literal account of the creation event. In other
words, although science is claiming that evolution can account for the speciation of all life as we
see it on earth (and perhaps it can), many creationists feel that further evidence is coming which
may disprove the grander claims of the facts of evolution. Admittedly, in situations like this, these
are matters of faith for them. But, having said this, it is a matter of faith that, in their minds, is worth
holding onto in the hopes that God will someday vindicate their belief.

To be continued...

 

[Matthew777]

In his commentary on the fifth day of Creation, St. John Chrysostom tells us:

"The blessed Moses, instructed by the Spirit of God, teaches us with such detail...so that we may clearly know both the order and the way of creation of each thing. If God had not been concerned for our salvation and guided the tongue of the Prophet, it would have been sufficient to say that God created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the living creatures, without indicating either the order of the days, or what was created earlier and what later...But he distinguishes so clearly both the order of creation and the number of days, and instructs us about everything with great condescension, in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heed the false teachings of those who speak of everything according to their own reasonings, but might comprehend the unutterable power of God."

The truth as to our origin, the origin of the species, and the universe does not come from our own reasonings, nor the reasonings of philosophers, nor the reasonings of science but the revealed truth of God.
This is why God gave Moses the Hexaemeron, so that we may know the truth.
Just as St. John the Evangelist was a prophet of what is to come in the end of time, Moses was a prophet of what occurred in the beginning.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

BTW: Blessed Augstine, though he taught that all things were created simultaneously, also taught that one created kind cannot change into another and that the earth is, in fact, young.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

The following quote discusses the importance of using scientific evidence as a factor in Biblical interpretation, and it is directly helpful, because it is discussing the creation story itself, using the creation of light on day one as an example.

This is a good 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.

In other words, there was probably some form of spiritual light in the existence of God's realm (the highest heaven) prior to the creation of light within the material universe. That light existed before God created does not appear to contradict the account in the Scriptures that "everything that was created was created by God." It simply points to the most likely conclusion that some form of eternal light existed in God's realm prior to the creation of material light within the created realm.

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 this sense, as noted above, like many of the Platonists and Neo-Platonists concluded, the "lower realm" found its pattern and form in the eternal and perfect "higher realm" -- albeit the "lower realm" is considered a temporal reflection of the "higher realm". It seems to related to the Scriptural concept of things being "on earth as it is in heaven", but admits that the "lower realm" had the capacity to become corrupt by virtue of its temporal nature.

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:

Does the current amount of evidence for the evolution of humanity from previous species render one's belief in God physically molding and shaping life on earth with loving hands an appeal to ignorance?

 

[Risen from the Dust]

The following quote discusses the importance of using scientific evidence as a factor in Biblical interpretation, and it is directly helpful, because it is discussing the creation story itself, using the creation of light on day one as an example.

This is a good 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.

In other words, there was probably some form of spiritual light in the existence of God's realm
(the highest heaven) prior to the creation of light within the material universe. That light existed
before God created does not appear to contradict the account in the Scriptures that "everything
that was created was created by God." It simply points to the most likely conclusion that some
form of eternal light existed in God's realm prior to the creation of material light within the created
realm.

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 this sense, as noted above, like many of the Platonists and Neo-Platonists concluded, the "lower realm" found its pattern and form in the eternal and perfect "higher realm" -- albeit the "lower realm" is considered a temporal reflection of the "higher realm". Like the analogy of viewing the world through a darkened mirror, it seems to related to the Scriptural concept of things being "on earth as it is in heaven", but admits that the "lower realm" had the capacity to become corrupt by virtue of its temporal nature if separated from God's grace.

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:

Does the current amount of evidence for the evolution of humanity from previous species render
one's belief in God physically molding and shaping life on earth with loving hands an appeal to
ignorance?

 

[Risen from the Dust]

"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.

And perhaps it's time to examine what the ancients actually "knew" as a fact -- examining exactly what the non-Christians knew (...or, at least thought they knew...) at least according to how St. Augustine might've viewed them (...since he seems familiar with many of their writings...):

Some Great Ionian Independant Thinkers

Thales of Miletus c. 600 B.C.:
Reported to have predicted a solar eclipse.
Learned to measure the height of a pyramid from the length of its shadow and the angle of the sun
above the horizon (a method employed today to measure the heights of the mountains on the
moon).
The first to prove geometric theorems of the sort codified by Euclid three centuries later (there is a
clear continuity of the intellectual effort from Thales to Euclid to Isaac Newton's purchase of the
Elements of Geometry at Stourbridge fair Fair in 1663).

Thales is most notable for attempting to understand the world without involving the intervention of
the gods. Like the Babylonians, he believed the word to have once been water. To explain the dry
land, the Babylonians added that Marduk had placed a mat on the face of the waters and piled
dirt upon it. Thales had a similar view but left Marduk out. To Thales, everything indeed was
water, but the earth formed out of the oceans by a natural process -- similar, he thought to the
silting he had observed at the delta of the Nile. In this sense, he thought that water was a common
underlying principle of all mater, just as today we might say the same of electrons, neutrons, and
protons (or quarks or whatever is considered the smallest particles these days).
​

Anaximander of Miletus (friend and colleague of Thales) c. 600 B.C.:
One of the first people we know to have actually performed an experiment (by examining the
moving shadow cast by a verticle stick he determined accurately the length of the year and the
seasons).
The first person in Greece to make a sundial.
Although he believed that the sun, moon, and stars were made of fire seen through moving holes in
the "dome of the sky", he nonetheless held the "remarkable view" that the earth was not
suspended (or supported) from the heavens -- but that it remains by itself at the center of the
universe.

It is noteworthy to state that Anaximander thought we were so helpless at birth that, if the first
human infants had been put into the world on their own, they would have immediately died. From
this deduction he concluded that human beings first arose from other animals with more self-reliant
newborns. In this sense, he proposed the spontanious origin of life in mud (with the very first
animals being fish covered with spines). Some descendants of these fish eventually abandonned
the water and moved to dry land -- where they effectively evolved into other animals by the
transmutation of one form into another. Even though he had no theory of natural selection, some
people consider him to be evolutionary theory's most ancient proponent.

As mentioned above, within the context of the apeiron, Anaximander basically believed in an
infinite number of worlds, all inhabitted, and all subject to cycles of dissolution and regenration.
Like Thales, Anaximander attempted to explain the world around him via natural causes without
recourse to gods. A true materialist (as true a materialist as one could be given his mystically
inclined culture he was raised in), Anaximander's works actually inspired St. Augustine to ruefully
complain against him, "Nor did he, any more than Thales, attribute the cause of all this ceaseless
activity to a divine mind."
​

I suppose I could go on with this.

For example, Democritus invented the word "atom" and employed it in a fashion very similar to
how many would use it in our modern era. He also conceived the Milky Way as being composed
mainly of unresolved stars long before astronomy reaped the benefits of the improved science of
optics. Anaxagoras, on the other hand, was the first person to clearly state that the moon shines
by reflected light. Sadly, he was imprissoned because he taught that the moon was made of
ordinary matter. Similarly, from Alexandria, Eratosthenes concluded that the earth was around
40,000 kilometers in circumference based on the different angles of shadows between two points
on earth at "high noon" separated by 800 kilometers.

Clearly there were some ancients who were ahead of thier time "scientifically" speaking -- and,
unlike many of the Judeo-Christian founders of the Christian faith, St. Augustine was quite familiar
with their writings.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

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.

And I agree that it is disgraceful.

For example, if I were to hypothetically walk up to Hawkings and Penrose and attempt to explain
to them that they didn't know what they were talking about based on my concepts of heaven, hell,
and sheol -- even though I had no clue about the formulae they use or how to even read them -- I
suspect that I would deserve to be mocked for my foolishness, and this being especially deserved
if God didn't actually give me the authority to do so and I acted out of my own selfish or deluded
presumptuousness.

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?

Which is another excellent point. There is a spirutal message and usually a physical manifestation
accompanying it within the Scriptures. We need to be very careful before attempting to claim
some physical manifestation of a mircacle within the Scriptures refutes a scientific opinion. A
miracle, by its very nature, seems to suspend the known laws of science to the point that the
physical mechanism behind its manifestation may lie well beyond the grasp of scientific research.

Admittedly, in the past, the gap between theological statements and scientific facts were much
further apart than they are today. I think this is where most of the problems with differences of
interpretation of Genesis arise today. Some claim that science is attempting to explain the
miraculous while emplying materialistic explanations. Others claim that the miraculous is no longer
neccessary (to the extent it was formally thought to be necessary) in light of the most recent
scientific discoveries.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

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."

Yes, and perhaps Origen's concept of the Noah's Ark may shed some light on some of St.
Augustine's comments. Origen of Alexandria wrote fairly extensively on the Flood and so it is
worth considering his views in some detail.

In his second Homily on Genesis Origen told his congregation that he intended first to relate to
them the literal sense of the account of Noah’s Ark, and then “...ascend from the historical
account to the mystical and allegorical understanding of the spiritual meaning...” Even in his literal
account there are elements not found in the original Hebrew (such as the reference to the
construction of ‘nests’ for the animals) which are drawn from Philo of Alexandria.

He described the dimensions of the Ark (giving it 5 decks instead of 3) and (again apparently
following Philo) thought that the Ark was shaped like a pyramid. The reason for this being that
they misunderstood the meaning of the phrase in Genesis 6:16 “finished to a cubit above”, which is
better translated “finish the ark within a cubit of the top.”

The result of this mistake is quite bizarre:

In the first place, therefore, we ask what sort of shape and form we should understand the appearance of the ark. I think, to the extent that it is manifest from these things which are described, rising with four angles from the bottom, and the same having been drawn together gradually all the way to the top, it has been brought together into the space of one cubit. For thus
it is related that at its bases three hundred cubits are laid down in length, fifty in breadth, and thirty are raised in height, but they are brought together in a narrow peak so that its breadth and length are a cubit.

It did not occur to either Philo or Origen that such an ark would only float upside down. On the
contrary, he considered that the pointed top would allow the rain water to flow off more easily
and the four corners act like a foundation.

Origen refuted the accusation of Apelles, a disciple of the Gnostic Marcion, that the ark was not
large enough to hold all the animals. Rather than resorting to allegory he defended the literal
meaning by arguing that Moses meant geometrical cubits - equal to 6 ordinary cubits. This
argument, incidently, was later taken up at a later date by St. Augustine to answer the same
challenge.

Celsus likewise pours scorn upon the account of the Flood, especially on the dimensions of the
Ark. Origen’s answer is that the dimensions stated and the time given to build the Ark were all
reasonable and can be taken literally.

He makes no reference to 2 Peter 3:3-10 in his discussion of the Flood, possibly because that
passage contradicted his eschatology. He believed that the fire of the second great conflagration
was to be taken figuratively for the judgement of God consuming the works of men (cf. 1 Cor.
3:13-15). Such an interpretation, however, was not typical of the rest of the church of his day.

I suppose that the Tower of Babel is another excellent example where the ideas of science and the
Scriptural record often square off against one another -- leaving the Scriptural reader with the
challenge of determining the ratio of literal to allegorical interpretation. As far as we can tell from
their surviving comments the early church fathers accepted the account of Babel as a historical
event, although for the most part they simply quoted the text without commenting on it in any
detail.

One of the church’s opponents, Celsus, claimed in the second century that the account of the
Tower of Babel was a corrupted version of the Greek story of the sons of Aloeus, Otus and
Ephialtes, recorded by Homer (c. 8th century BC).

And after her I saw Iphimedeia, wife of Aloeus, who declared that she had lain with Poseidon. She bore two sons, but short of life were they, godlike Otus, and far-famed Ephialtes - men whom the earth, the giver of grain, reared as the tallest, and far the comliest, after the famous Orion. For at nine years they were nine cubit in breadth and in height nine fathoms. Yea, and they threatened to raise the din of furious war against the mortals in Olympus. They were fain to pile Ossa on Olympus, and Pelion, with its waving forests, on Ossa, that so heaven might be scaled. And this they would have accomplished, if they had reached the measure of manhood; but the son of Zeus, whom fair-haired Leto bore, slew them both before the down blossomed beneath their temples and covered their chins with a growth of beard.”

Origen countered Celsus’ argument with the (now familiar) claim that as Moses antedated Homer
then Moses’ account of the confusion of tongues must be the original one. Eusebius called upon
extrabiblical evidence in support of the account of the confusion of languages, citing Josephus,
Abydenus and the Sibylline Oracles.

It appears to have been generally accepted that Babel resulted in the division of mankind into 72
language groups, being the number of post-flood chieftains. St. Augustine referred to the
Scriptural record found in Genesis 11 on numerous occasions and clearly held the majority view
that all the languages of the world are explained by the events at Babel:

We now see that from these three men, Noah’s sons, seventy-three nations - or rather seventy-two, as a calculation will show - and as many languages came into being on the earth, and by their increase they filled even the islands. However, the number of nations increased at a greater rate than the languages. For even in Africa we know of many barbarous nations using only one language.

If there was only one language before Babel, what was it? St. Augustine's view seems to change on
this subject. In his Literal Commentary on Genesis he wrote:

We know, of course, that there was originally just one language before man in his pride built the tower after the flood and caused human society to be divided according to different languages. And whatever the original language was, what point is there in trying to discover it?

By the time he wrote the City of God he had changed his mind and become convinced that
Hebrew was the original language of man, the position held by the majority. There were those
who stood against this position. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, argued that Hebrew was a recent
language and rejected any notion that it might be the language of God Himself.

It is also worth noting that St. Augustine understood the dividing of the earth as recorded within
the Scriptural record of Genesis 10:25 as being caused by the diversity of languages arising after
Babel -- not some massive rupturing tectonic event which literally "divided the land" in a physical
sense.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

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":

And, in doing so, he's basically admitting that he doesn't understand it -- which is quite admirable
compared to other Christian apologeticists during his time..There are, however, perhaps reasons
why this is so.

I will discuss this in more detail below.

"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. . . ."

It is perhaps noteworthy to record -- for posterity's sake -- some of the "reigning opinions" in
regards to creation that were apparently in "conflict" with one another. In doing this, it gives a
better understanding of the context from which he was "most likely" speaking -- and restricts us
from reading more than he was actually implying within his own statements.

Out of these truths, of which they doubt not whose inward eye Thou hast enabled to see such things, and who unshakenly believe Thy servant Moses to have spoken in the Spirit of truth; -of all these then, he taketh one, who saith, In the Beginning God made the heaven and the earth; that is,

"in His Word coeternal with Himself, God made the intelligible and the sensible, or the spiritual and the corporeal creature."

He another, that saith, In the Beginning God made heaven and earth; that is,

"in His Word coeternal with Himself, did God make the universal bulk of this corporeal world, together with all those apparent and known creatures, which it containeth."

He another, that saith, In the Beginning God made heaven and earth; that is,

"in His Word coeternal with Himself, did God make the formless matter of creatures spiritual and corporeal."

He another, that saith, In the Beginning God created heaven and earth; that is,

"in His Word coeternal with Himself, did God create the formless matter of the creature corporeal, wherein heaven and earth lay as yet confused, which, being now distinguished and formed, we at this day see in the bulk of this world."

He another, who saith, In the Beginning God made heaven and earth; that is,

"in the very beginning of creating and working, did God make that formless matter, confusedly containing in itself both heaven and earth; out of which, being formed, do they now stand out, and are apparent, with all that is in them."

And with regard to the understanding of the words following, out of all those truths, he chooses one to himself, who saith, But the earth was invisible, and without form, and darkness was upon the deep; that is,

"that corporeal thing that God made, was as yet a formless matter of corporeal things, without order, without light. "

Another he who says, The earth was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the deep; that is,

"this all, which is called heaven and earth, was still a formless and darksome matter, of which the corporeal heaven and the corporeal earth were to be made, with all things in them, which are known to our corporeal senses."

Another he who says, The earth was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the deep; that is,

"this all, which is called heaven and earth, was still a formless and a darksome matter; out of which was to be made, both that intelligible heaven, otherwhere called the Heaven of heavens, and the earth, that is, the whole corporeal nature, under which name is comprised this corporeal heaven also; in a word, out of which every visible and invisible creature was to be created."

Another he who says, The earth was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the deep,

"the Scripture did not call that formlessness by the name of heaven and earth; but that formlessness, saith he, already was, which he called the earth invisible without form, and darkness upon the deep; of which he had before said, that God had made heaven and earth, namely, the spiritual and corporeal creature."

Another he who says, The earth was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the deep; that is,

"there already was a certain formless matter, of which the Scripture said before, that God made heaven and earth; namely, the whole corporeal bulk of the world, divided into two great parts, upper and lower, with all the common and known creatures in them."

For should any attempt to dispute against these two last opinions, thus,

"If you will not allow, that this formlessness of matter seems to be called by the name of heaven and earth; Ergo, there was something which God had not made, out of which to make heaven and earth; for neither hath Scripture told us, that God made this matter, unless we understand it to be signified by the name of heaven and earth, or of earth alone, when it is said, In the Beginning God made the heaven and earth; that so in what follows, and the earth was invisible and without form (although it pleased Him so to call the formless matter), we are to understand no other matter, but that which God made, whereof is written above, God made heaven and earth."

The maintainers of either of those two latter opinions will, upon hearing this, return for answer,

"we do not deny this formless matter to be indeed created by God, that God of Whom are all things, very good; for as we affirm that to be a greater good, which is created and formed, so we confess that to be a lesser good which is made capable of creation and form, yet still good. We say however that Scripture hath not set down, that God made this formlessness, as also it hath not many others; as the Cherubim, and Seraphim, and those which the Apostle distinctly speaks of, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers. All which that God made, is most apparent.

Or if in that which is said, He made heaven and earth, all things be comprehended, what shall we say of the waters, upon which the Spirit of God moved?

For if they be comprised in this word earth; how then can formless matter be meant in that name of earth, when we see the waters so beautiful?

Or if it be so taken; why then is it written, that out of the same formlessness, the firmament was made, and called heaven; and that the waters were made, is not written?

For the waters remain not formless and invisible, seeing we behold them flowing in so comely a manner.

But if they then received that beauty, when God said, Let the waters under the firmament be gathered together, that so the gathering together be itself the forming of them; what will be said as to those waters above the firmament?

Seeing neither if formless would they have been worthy of so honourable a seat, nor is it written, by what word they were formed. If then Genesis is silent as to God's making of any thing, which yet that God did make neither sound faith nor well-grounded understanding doubteth, nor again will any sober teaching dare to affirm these waters to be coeternal with God, on the ground that we find them to be mentioned in the hook of Genesis, but when they were created, we do not find; why (seeing truth teaches us) should we not understand that formless matter (which this Scripture calls the earth invisible and without form, and darksome deep) to have been created of
God out of nothing, and therefore not to be coeternal to Him; notwithstanding this history hath omitted to show when it was created?"

These things then being heard and perceived, according to the weakness of my capacity (which I confess unto Thee, O Lord, that knowest it), two sorts of disagreements I see may arise, when a thing is in words related by true reporters; one, concerning the truth of the things, the other, concerning the meaning of the relater. For we enquire one way about the making of the creature, what is true; another way, what Moses, that excellent minister of Thy Faith, would have his reader and hearer understand by those words.

For the first sort, away with all those who imagine themselves to know as a truth, what is false; and for this other, away with all them too, which imagine Moses to have written things that be false. But let me be united in Thee, O Lord, with those and delight myself in Thee, with them that feed on Thy truth, in the largeness of charity, and let us approach together unto the words of Thy book, and seek in them for Thy meaning, through the meaning of Thy servant, by whose pen Thou hast dispensed them.

But which of us shall, among those so many truths, which occur to enquirers in those words, as they are differently understood, so discover that one meaning, as to affirm, "this Moses thought," and "this would he have understood in that history"; with the same confidence as he would, "this is true," whether Moses thought this or that?

For behold, O my God, I Thy servant, who have in this book vowed a sacrifice of confession unto Thee, and pray, that by Thy mercy I may pay my vows unto Thee, can I, with the same confidence wherewith I affirm, that in Thy incommutable world Thou createdst all things visible and invisible, affirm also, that Moses meant no other than this, when he wrote, In the Beginning
God made heaven and earth?

No. Because I see not in his mind, that he thought of this when he wrote these things, as I do see it in Thy truth to be certain. For he might have his thoughts upon God's commencement of creating, when he said In the beginning; and by heaven and earth, in this place he might intend no formed and perfected nature whether spiritual or corporeal, but both of them inchoate and as yet formless.

For I perceive, that whichsoever of the two had been said, it might have been truly said; but which of the two he thought of in these words, I do not so perceive. Although, whether it were either of these, or any sense beside (that I have not here mentioned), which this so great man saw in his mind, when he uttered these words, I doubt not but that he saw it truly, and expressed it aptly.

Let no man harass me then, by saying, Moses thought not as you say, but as I say: for if he should ask me, "How know you that Moses thought that which you infer out of his words?" I ought to take it in good part, and would answer perchance as I have above, or something more at large, if he were unyielding.

But when he saith, "Moses meant not what you say, but what I say," yet denieth not that what each of us say, may both be true, O my God, life of the poor, in Whose bosom is no contradiction, pour down a softening dew into my heart, that I may patiently bear with such as say this to me, not because they have a divine Spirit, and have seen in the heart of Thy servant what
they speak, but because they be proud; not knowing Moses' opinion, but loving their own, not because it is truth, but because it is theirs.

Otherwise they would equally love another true opinion, as I love what they say, when they say true: not because it is theirs, but because it is true; and on that very ground not theirs because it is true. But if they therefore love it, because it is true, then is it both theirs, and mine; as being in common to all lovers of truth. But whereas they contend that Moses did not mean what I say, but what they say, this I like not, love not: for though it were so, yet that their rashness belongs not to knowledge, but to overboldness, and not insight but vanity was its parent.

And therefore, O Lord, are Thy judgements terrible; seeing Thy truth is neither mine, nor his, nor another's; but belonging to us all, whom Thou callest publicly to partake of it, warning us terribly, not to account it private to ourselves, lest we he deprived of it. For whosoever challenges that as proper to himself, which Thou propoundest to all to enjoy, and would have that his own which belongs to all, is driven from what is in common to his own; that is, from truth, to a lie. For he that speaketh a lie, speaketh it of his own.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

BTW: Blessed Augstine, though he taught that all things were created simultaneously, also taught that one created kind cannot change into another and that the earth is, in fact, young.

I know -- well...yes and no.

But the discussion seems to be related to exactly how far one's God given human reason can comprehend the physical mechanisms behind God's creation -- the difference between science and the miraculous and the proper exegesis of the Scriptures in light of this difference.

To the extent that St. Augustine dwelled on this subject, noting his own background (and his being influenced) by Greco-Roman philosophies, I am addressing this as best as I'm able to do given my limited knowledge -- and praying that the Spirit would move me where knowledge of his revelation is lacking.

Vance, I will continue this tomorrow, as I will be addressing the Scriptural record shortly...

 

[Risen from the Dust]

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:

Yes...and what modern facts should creationists be considering reliable -- and how does it fit into
what the Scriptures really say?

I have no doubt at all that if Augustine was alive today, he would be a theistic
evolutionist! :0)

The theory of evolution?

"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."

So can you demonstrate how it is not contrary to the Scriptural account of creation?

It's been my observation that all attempts to mesh the Scriptural record (even using poetic, topical,
and allegorical readings) seems to fail to predict the speciation origins of the human race -- which
I find odd since Anaximander (a mere man who was not inspired by his belief in God or gods)
could poetically describe the evolutionary processes in connection with the origins of man in
ancient poetic (and even crudely scientific) language.

Certainly Moses as inspired by God could've expressed something similar -- something could've
been said.

I'll explain clearly why I feel the theory of evolution does not intermesh at all with the Scriptural
account of the universe's initital creation at a later point in this thread -- and why the Scriptures
themselves, in my humble opinion, do seem to indicate an instantanious supernaturally crafted
creation first (which is then followed by natural evolutionary processes after the initial supernatural
creation was started).

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.

Actually, theistic evolutionists appear to take the theory of evolution as scientifically to the point
that God having guided the initial creation of various species as a shepherd would guide a flock
seems superfluous.

Likewise, do not old earth and gap theorists do the same -- show them how that it fits with
Scripture, lest they attempt to use their evidence to disprove Scripture?

Or is a belief in God physically molding and shaping life on earth with loving hands considered an
appeal to ignorance?

 

[Risen from the Dust]

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.

ok...

"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."

Hmmm....

There are a couple of very important truths expounded here.

I don't know if I would call them "truths". Rather, they seem to be potential warnings for future
generations to heed -- and expressed quite clearly at that.

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".

Then again, perhaps faulty interpretations simply lead to faulty understandings of Scripture?

Is it possible to go too far with an allegorical interpretation of Scripture.

For example, in one of his thoughts, he speculates that the "gold" of Egypt as referenced within the
Scriptures represents the spiritual truth of the philosophers -- who were gentiles. But, having
worshipped the "idols of Egypt" -- their own pride -- they perverted the gold from its proper
usage. While this may be accurate (and quite insightful), it could also just plain be wrong.

Likewise, along similar lines, throughout his allegorical treatment of the Scriptural account found in
Genesis 1, St. Augustine uses the earth to refer to the godly, the faithful, and specifically, to the
church itself. Again, while this may be accurate (and quite insightful), it could also just plain be
wrong -- perhaps even wrong to the point that those trying to grasp its meaning become confused
as to what it's actually saying.

A peculiar expression that he uses -- waters without substance -- is based on the Old Latin
version of Psalm 124:5, which in turn came from a "mistranslation" of the Septuagint version of the
Hebrew Scriptures. The more modern versions render is thus: "Then over us would have gone
raging waters." at least in the Revised Standard Version. In this sense, St. Augustine regards sin as
having no substance, and in these "waters without substance" the prodigal "wasted his substance"
-- his very self (as recorded in his sermon on Psalm 124:5)

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

Apparently so, since this whole section of Christian forums wouldn't exist if this were not so. My
hope is that more serious dialogues will be engaged here between creationists and theistic
evolutionists. It seems as though at times that a "talk show" mentallity similar to Jerry Springer's
antics is encouraged to provoke controvesy and further spurious debates.

While I'm sure it adds to the roster of potential members therefore contibuting financially, nothing
really appears to get answered in this fashion without an onslaught of insults accompanying them. In this regard, I've found this thread posted by Vance to be particularly friendly and very respectable.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Third, it may not even be possible to determine the meaning from the context of Scripture
itself.

I think it may be possible. However, I admit I could be wrong.

The odd point that I've noticed is that when talking to a theistic evolutionist, a key point is often
claimed that it may not even be possible to determine the meaning from the context of Scripture
itself.

However, when talking to a creationist, a key point is often claimed that it may certainly be
possible to determine the meaning from the context of Scripture itself.

In regards to the creation account, it seems as though the Scriptures do indicate a literal creation
of some form -- and does not generally indicate an evolutionary process at all. If this were not
true, then I would suspect that the above creationist/evolutionary claims would be totally reversed:

That the theistic evolutionist would claim that it may be certainly possible to determine the
meaning from the context of Scripture itself -- whereas the creationist would take the default
position that 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.

Despite my point noted above, I agree with this assertion to some extant.

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.

But so do old earth creationists and gap theorists to some extent.

Furthermore, where am I placed on this spectrum since I believe that God created the basic
lifeforms via an instantanious miraclous process over billions of years -- but also allowed the basic
forms to evolve and speciate by God's spiritual direction?

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Also important, Augustine also warns against the serious danger of reading a text literally
that was meant to be read non-literally:

Hmmm...but this quote is in regards to the development of Christian doctrine -- not necessarilly
implying disparate views on creation per se. Although I suppose one could apply this to scientific
endeavors, his critical words were more directed expectations of Christ's second coming -- and
the dangerous pattern of attempting to predict (or even force) his return.

"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).

Yes, however, in addition to some other "astrological parousial" factors, this is where St.
Augustine is specifically refuting key points such as millenialism and chiliasm. Until the time of St.
Augustine near the fall of Rome (about 400 A.D.), most Christian exegesiates who mentioned the
subject believed Christ would "literally" reign on earth for a thousand years at the close of history.
Though they had varying views as to what that time would be like, many believed this would be a
sabbath millennium -- a time of rest from human labor.

St. Augustine effectively changed all that, turning it on its head, stating that John's millenium was a
figurative time period that began from the time of Christ's ministry. The one thousand years in the
Apocalypse when the saints would rule with Christ did not mean that Christ would "physically"
return as regent. It meant the spirit of Christ would rukle the world through the Church hierarchy
for a long but indefinite period until Jesus returned to judge the earth and take his saints to heaven.
The adversary was seen as being bound by Christ in the sense of being cast out of the believer's
heart, but still very much present in the unbeliever's heart.

The majority took to St. Augustine's views that John was not refering to a literal reign of Christ,
but the reign of the church -- yet many of these still thought the rule of the church would last a
"literal" thousand years, at which point Christ's followers would be taken into God's eternal
presense. That created considerable angst and turmoil beginning near the year A.D. 1000 and
lasting until about 1033 (which would have been about one thousand years after Christ's death
and resurrection).

When the world did not stop going around the sun, amillenial Christians accepted St. Augustine's
"figurative" interpretation of the time span yet continued to beleive the one thousand-year reign
referred to a "literal" earthly rule by the our church hierarchy.

Because St. Augustine lived in an age of monumental political transition, his reshaping of prophetic
interpretation reshaped the world, especially five hundred years later (A.D. 1000) when the glacial
force of a millenial change came up behind it, Entire nations converted to Christianity -- at least
nominally. As explained earlier, the belief that Christ would reign through the Church effectively
gave her a tempting manifest destiny to become an imperial power.

The interesting part of all this is that St. Augustine, literally himself, had actually beleived in a literal
sabbath millennium until he decided it had to be rejected because many of those of those who
believed in a sabbath millenium thought it would be graced with abundant physical pleasures. This
simply couldn't be a "good thing" in St. Augustine's opinion -- especially since he seems to have
believed that original sin was transmitted by the "sexual intercourse" and transmitted to their
children appropriately.

Although I believe that original sin is transmitted via Adam and Eve all the way down to our
modern era, I personally think that linking the original sin with sexual intercourse is ridiculously
wrong to be frank. It seems to me that the results of "sin" was death -- not that "sex" leads to the
transmission of original sin which leads to death.

I do, however, agree with Augustine that "mortality" is the evidence in humans that God reists the
proud -- to some extent (in my own opinion) the penalty of the self-exaltation in which Augustine
finds the ultimate motive of man's primary disobedience -- aimed as setting "self" in place of God.

I'd like to address this thought more when I have a chance.

I admit that his Confessions is one of the most honest soul-searching inventories from the ancient
world. Having said this, however, it seems to demonstate that St. Augustine tended to be very
hard on himself that way -- and sometimes also others -- perhaps almost to the point of
self-loathing during certain reflective periods in his life. St. Augustine's memories of his early
childhood were far from happy. In addition to this, his reference to physical punishment at school
indicates that he still felt that some of it was unjust and unwarrnated.

Nonetheless, under St. Augustine's influence Christianity developed a kind of dualistic philosophy
not very disimilar to the Manichean thoughts from which St. Augustine emerged from; where
everything physical was inherently evil, and the only true good was the spiritual good.

[Some people], on the strength of [the millennial] passage in the Apocalypse],...have been
moved, among other things, specially by the number of a thousand years, as if it were a fit thing
that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of sabbath-rest during that period, a holy leisure after the
labours of the six thousand years since man was created....so that thus, as it is written, "One day is
with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," thjere should follow on the
completetion of six thousand years....a kind of seventh-day sabbath in the succeeding thousand
years; and that it is for this purpose that the saints rise, viz., to celebrate this sabbath. And this
opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints in the sabbath
shall be spiritual....for I myself, too, once held this opinion. But, as they assert that those who then
rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets....such assertions can be believed only by the carnal.

In other words, aside from the figurative language that is implied, it almost appears that St.
Augustine's sole basis for rejecting the litral interpretation of John's millennium was that people
thought it would be a time filled with physical pleasures.

St. Augustine further taught that it was not possible for the church to be seduced by evil because
the devil had already been bound for the figurative thousand years during which the church was
reigning. If the church could not be seduced by evil, it only followed that the church could not do
evil.

This logic appears to be entirely circular: How did one know the actions of the church were
infallible? Because it was the Church that did them.

Originally an advocate of religious liberty, St. Augustine became one of the first bishops to assert
the principle of religious coercion -- and to put his name behind civil persecution by the church.
Augustine must be reckoned as one of the architects of the unified Christianity that survived
the barbarian invasions of the 5th century and emerged as the religion of medieval Europe. He
succeeded in bringing together the philosophic Christianity of his youth and the popular Christianity
of his congregation in Hippo. In doing so, he created a theology that has remained basic to
Western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, ever since.

In retrospect, although he was certainly perhaps one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the early
church, for both good and bad, St. Augustine appears to have nonetheless cast a long shadow
across the age of the church.

Please note that, as a Roman Catholic, I do believe in amillenialism. However, I do not accept St.
Augustine's reasoning for it. There are many other factors that need to be taken into account
before one could reasonably come to this conclusion -- and it's not based on the sexual
transmission of the spiritual "venerial disease" otherwise known as "original sin" that St. Augustine
appears to present rather carnally. Rather, I would point to the very quote above where he
speaks of figurative language.

Likewise, as a Catholic, I do beleive that the church is both infallible and indefectable. However,
in stating this, I tend to again reject St. Augustine's circular almost primitive reasoning for it.

Just for clarification, I'll note the two terms as I understand them.

Indefectability is the conviction of the church about the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in
her. In spite of sin, failure, and all the inevitable inadequacies that haunt every human, the church
trusts that she will not succumb to the powers of darkness.

Jesus at a solemn and critical moment in his public ministry declared to Simon Peter: “You are
Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”
Catholic confidence in this indefectablity of the church rests not on church structures but on the
promise of Christ and on the presence of God’s Spirit within the community of faith.

The word infallibility suggests an incapacity to be wrong in judging something to be true or not, a
protection against falling into error. As an example of this, the great councils of the church are
recognized to be infallible.

In addition to this, our Pope is also recognized as being infallible when, in an official act as chief
pastor and teacher of the church, he solemnly defines a truth of faith (or morals) as belonging to
the content of God’s revelation.

It needs to be stated that the church has recognized this as a rare event in her life. Infallibility is no
guarantee that the formulation given is the best possible one, or that its definition at a particular
moment is a particularly wise action. However, it does guarantee that through the assistance of the
Spirit such a definition is not false, and that it does not go against the truth of the gospel. The way,
over time, that a particular definition is received into the life of the church tells a great deal about
its precise meaning and its final authority.

To be continued...

 

[Risen from the Dust]

*bump*