Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:22 am
Dick, James
Some very interesting comments on Augustine. I knew he wasn't a Biblical literalist, particularly in relation to Genesis - I recently read an excellent book on Genesis - Genesis; The Movie by the American Episcopalian priest and about-as-close-as-you-can-get-to-being-a-Universalist-without-actually-being-one Robert Farrar Capon, which draws heavily on Augustine - but I had no idea this approach to scripture was common among the very early church fathers, Dick. How refreshing to learn that! In fact, I think we could all do with a healthy dose of 'primitive' Christianity. Those men and women were in so many ways so much closer to Christ and the Apostles - chronologically (obviously!), spiritually and theologically, if you ask me - than all who have come after them.
Personally I do believe in the idea of progressive revelation, but I also think some of us, sometimes, give way too much credence to the thought of the so-called 'great' theologians - Luther, Calvin etc - in favour of Christ, his contemporaries and appointed ambassadors, and the early fathers, simply because we perceive that they have somehow correctly 'worked out' theology - doctrines that the Bible doesn't make explicit (eg the atonement).
It's odd, isn't it, that in so many ways the broader 'orthodox' church is such a great respecter of tradition (eg in opposition to the doctrine of UR), but only a certain distance back in time. Were the church more willing to embrace the earlier traditions of those first Christians, we might not be in the pickle we are now over ECT.
Personally too, while I respect Augustine in many ways, I do think some of his ideas were truly terrible - bad hermeneutics, bad exegesis and eisegesis, bad philosophy, the works. His influence has been so malign - malignant even - and destructive on the gospel. And sadly, we're still seeing it everywhere today. (Look no farther than Mark Driscoll and his neo-Calvinist brethren.) But of course, Augustine converted from paganism, in pagan times. We mustn't forget that.
Calvin, of course, didn't have that excuse for his horrible theology.
Dick, I will have a think about a thread on literature and Original Sin. Not sure if I'm quite up to synopsising Lord of the Flies, though, without reading it again.
Which might be edifying anyhow.
Shalom
Johnny
Some very interesting comments on Augustine. I knew he wasn't a Biblical literalist, particularly in relation to Genesis - I recently read an excellent book on Genesis - Genesis; The Movie by the American Episcopalian priest and about-as-close-as-you-can-get-to-being-a-Universalist-without-actually-being-one Robert Farrar Capon, which draws heavily on Augustine - but I had no idea this approach to scripture was common among the very early church fathers, Dick. How refreshing to learn that! In fact, I think we could all do with a healthy dose of 'primitive' Christianity. Those men and women were in so many ways so much closer to Christ and the Apostles - chronologically (obviously!), spiritually and theologically, if you ask me - than all who have come after them.
Personally I do believe in the idea of progressive revelation, but I also think some of us, sometimes, give way too much credence to the thought of the so-called 'great' theologians - Luther, Calvin etc - in favour of Christ, his contemporaries and appointed ambassadors, and the early fathers, simply because we perceive that they have somehow correctly 'worked out' theology - doctrines that the Bible doesn't make explicit (eg the atonement).
It's odd, isn't it, that in so many ways the broader 'orthodox' church is such a great respecter of tradition (eg in opposition to the doctrine of UR), but only a certain distance back in time. Were the church more willing to embrace the earlier traditions of those first Christians, we might not be in the pickle we are now over ECT.
Personally too, while I respect Augustine in many ways, I do think some of his ideas were truly terrible - bad hermeneutics, bad exegesis and eisegesis, bad philosophy, the works. His influence has been so malign - malignant even - and destructive on the gospel. And sadly, we're still seeing it everywhere today. (Look no farther than Mark Driscoll and his neo-Calvinist brethren.) But of course, Augustine converted from paganism, in pagan times. We mustn't forget that.
Calvin, of course, didn't have that excuse for his horrible theology.
Dick, I will have a think about a thread on literature and Original Sin. Not sure if I'm quite up to synopsising Lord of the Flies, though, without reading it again.
Which might be edifying anyhow.Shalom
Johnny