Thursday, February 12, 2009

Augustine and satanic beings (PhD edit)


Bristol, England (photo from trekearth.com)

In regard to hermeneutics and the existence of satanic beings, Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling explain hermeneutics is the discipline that studies the rules, principles, and theories of how a text, including Scripture, should be theologically interpreted. This would include the relationship between the author, text, and reader.[1] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard note that the word for hermeneutics comes from the Greek verb hermeneuin, meaning to explain, interpret or translate, while the noun hermeneia means interpretation or translation.[2] Charles Caldwell Ryrie (1974) states hermeneutics is the scientific method, which provides a principal of interpretation of Scripture, and these rules guide each reader’s system of theology.[3]

Augustine, from what has been presented in this Chapter within the context of satanic beings, appears to assume they did actually exist and had limited power and dominion over human beings.[4] Augustine therefore can be deduced to have believed in literal, historical, satanic beings in Scripture. This is not an overall evaluation of Augustine’s hermeneutics as that would be another thesis in itself. Plantinga cautiously supports Augustine’s hermeneutical approach and conclusions in regard to the existence of satanic beings.[5] According to D.W. Robertson, Jr. (1964) the translator of Augustine’s book On Christian Doctrine, explains the text sheds light on Augustine’s interpretation of the Bible.[6] Robertson writes that for Augustine, interpretation was not done by scientific and historical analysis, but by understanding the philosophy and theology of Biblical writers.[7] Augustine’s method was based in faith, hope, and charity (love), and a trust in God rather than in science.[8] It was not the hermeneutical method of modern times but was Augustine’s nonetheless.[9] Augustine’s hermeneutic included the idea that one should be mentally clear in regard to issues of God in order to receive guidance.[10] This would support Robertson’s idea that Augustine’s hermeneutical assumptions began with a trust in divine guidance over scientific means of understanding the Biblical text.[11] Robertson explains that Augustine did use an allegory method in his exposition of Scripture, but this was done in order to find the fullest possible interpretations of Scripture.[12] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling define allegory as a method of Biblical interpretation where ‘hidden’ or ‘deeper’ understandings are sought.[13] This favours a ‘spiritual’ meaning over literal ones.[14] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard explain that this was the popular hermeneutical method within the era of the Church Fathers.[15] New Testament scholar, Klyne Snodgrass (1991) explains allegorical approaches would assign a spiritual meaning to specific texts, in particular ones difficult to interpret.[16] Christian theology was often imposed on texts of the Old Testament, and this approach was common in the Christian Church until the Reformation.[17] Although Augustine understood satanic beings as actual entities, this does not mean he used a literal hermeneutic in his overall theological approach, as Robertson points out Augustine uses the allegory method.[18]

[1] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 59).
[2] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 4).
[3] Ryrie (1974: 86).
[4] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[5] Plantinga (1982: 192).
[6] Robertson (1964: ix)(1997).
[7] Robertson (1964: ix)(1997).
[8] Robertson (1964: xii)(1997). Augustine (427)(1997: 33).
[9] Robertson (1964: xii)(1997).
[10] Augustine (427)(1997: 13).
[11] I reason hermeneutically a scholar does not need to choose between a regimented scientific methodology, and trusting in divine guidance.
[12] Robertson (1964: xi)(1997).
[13] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 8).
[14] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 8).
[15] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 32).
[16] Snodgrass (1991: 413).
[17] Snodgrass (1991: 413).
[18] Robertson (1964: xi)(1997).

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

KLEIN, WILLIAM W. CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

RYRIE, CHARLES CALDWELL (1974) Dispensationalism Today, Chicago, Moody Press.

SNODGRASS, KLYNE (1991) ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New’, in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

This clip has been receiving some traffic (hundreds of hits) over in my satire and theology archives and so here once again is the Lochness Monster/Giant Haystacks.

African 'booze' tree. Thanks, Mom.

Additional

This is a message from someone, that according to her, is now in Benin, Africa, and was formerly in London and North Carolina. She is on the Facebook 'Are You Interested?' application. She acted ticked when I messaged with her briefly here last week and had not visited her when I was in the UK last month, as she was in London. As if I was going to visit her after two to three short email messages, as she is a stranger and I was nowhere near London.

I have no clue what the hell she is writing about.

'sweetie, if i tell you i love you, it doesnt mean facial loving, you talking about facial loving, i havnt met you ,so i believe i just like you but i love the way you talk to me, message me, i can read the feelings you have for me and i believe definetely we are going to me then that means we will one day. i so much chrish your humbleness and the way you talk to me through mails and also your profile is an evidence of you mylove.'

My reply to this message was...

LOL.

31 comments:

  1. Nice Stuff!

    Commendable Blog Indeed!

    Dear Blogger, need your valuable feedback for:

    www.octandigital.com

    Regards,
    Mehta

    ReplyDelete
  2. As you know, hermeneutical method is determinative; people come to different (sometimes contrary) conclusions about what the Bible means because of different hermeneutical approaches. Of course, even within the same hermeneutical method people can reach different conclusions about certain things. But for the most part, it is our hermeneutical method that determines our beliefs.

    This is why it is so difficult to "debate" people about doctrinal issues; we so often find ourselves arguing about issues that can never be fully appreciated without looking deeper into the method we employ in reaching our conclusions.

    My Dad, for instance, disagrees with me about many things. He's a pre-mil dispensationalist and I'm "reformed". Of course, as is typical with mainstream Southern Baptist ecclesiology, very few people within the SBC even realize that there is or can be alternate ways to read the text and still be Christian. I know because Mrs. Moogly and I spent the early part of our Christian lives in the SBC. When I was presented with any "doctrine" or idea that did not comport with what the SBC taught, that doctrine or idea was considered heretical...end of discussion! I call this "Falwellism" (for obvious reasons).

    And this is pretty ironic because the origin of the SBC was "reformed" and, for the most part, "post-mil". Of course, there is and has been a growing movement within the state of the SBC (see the Founders Ministries) that seek to return the SBC to its original charter, but the masses that attend SBC churches are clueless that any other interpretation of Scripture exists. And if it does, it's not biblical. I don't know how many times my Dad has said to me, in disagreement with me over a doctrinal or theological issue, "Are you reading the Bible?", or has said about himself, "I just read the Bible. This is what it says and I believe it", as if anyone who would disagree with him (the SBC) is wrong and heretical.

    But there's no arguing with him because he will not engage in hermeneutical issues. Now I'm not saying that one hermeneutic is correct over another (though obviously I, as do all people, believe that to be true or we wouldn't reach any biblical conclusions at all!); all I'm saying is that until people realize that it is their hermeneutical approach (even those who've never heard of the word before) that determines their interpretation of Scripture, debate will usually be a lost cause.

    Whew! Did I write all of that this early in the morning? Since I'm tired and still need to get ready for work, I'm sure I haven't made as much sense as I usually do (insert any appropriate "Christian" snide remark here...I walked into it myself! :-) But your post just got me thinking how much we all simply talk about surface issues without getting to understand how and why we've reached these conclusions. So many people "believe" something just because someone else told them this what something means. I've been there and done that! I enjoy being free!!

    Uh-oh! It sounds like I'm getting myself going again! I'll stop now.

    GGM

    BTW-"allegory" (no good). "typology" (very good).

    ReplyDelete
  3. '...all I'm saying is that until people realize that it is their hermeneutical approach (even those who've never heard of the word before) that determines their interpretation of Scripture, debate will usually be a lost cause.'

    Very good points, Jason. There is a worldview behind a hermeneutical approach and this needs to be constantly reviewed and refined as persons study, Scripture and related theology, philosophy and other disciplines.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ...so Augustine had nothing to say about how satanic beings are summoned by the playing of rock and roll music? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'Hi Russ,

    Happy Valentine's Day!
    From all of us here at Zoosk we wish you a very happy Valentine' day.

    If you haven't found that special someone yet, remember that Zoosk is here to help. Click here now to see what cupid has in store for you!

    You have received this message at the email address: thekingpin68@shaw.ca
    Copyright © 2007-2009 Zoosk, 130 Battery St., San Francisco, CA 94111 USA.
    Email Settings | Privacy Policy'

    This just arrived. I do not think a Valentine from Zoosk in San Francisco sounds too promising.

    Cheers, Chuck.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You gotta watch out for that 'facial loving'....whatever that is! LOL!

    I have had a brief lesson or two and some little practice in homiletics, but never any training in hermeneutics.

    Christ certainly talked about satanic (demonic) beings in a literal sense in the Bible, and I fully believe that Christ not only believes in their existence, but He deals with them, and has dealt with them, on a personal level. Not only that, but he created them before their fall, just as He created humans before our fall.

    I just looked on Wikipedia, and was surprised to find out that Augustine was born in Africa (Algeria). I never knew that!

    Not surprising to find (on Wikipedia), since he was Catholic, was that "Augustine strongly stressed the importance of infant baptism. He believed that no one would be saved unless he or she had received baptism in order to be cleansed from original sin."

    Also in line with Catholic teaching, Wikipedia reported about Augustine that "Even before the Council of Ephesus, he defended the ever Virgin Mary as the mother of God, who, because of her virginity, is full of grace. She was free of any temporal sin. Because of a woman, the whole human race was saved."

    I sometimes tend to wonder if a person can believe in the Immaculate Conception, and in salvation through baptism, and still be a born-again (regenerated) Christian. Then again, there are Protestants (or those in non-denominational churches) that don't accept the Trinity, or who believe Jesus was not fully God (or at least, not before His baptism), or that Jesus did not exist at one time. I also wonder if a person who believes those things can be born-again. Basically, to what extent can you believe false doctrines and still be saved?

    It was interesting to read that "It was not until the 12th century that pope Innocent III accepted the doctrine of limbo as promulgated by Peter Abelard. It was the place where the unbaptized went and suffered no pain but, as the Church maintained, being still in a state of original sin, they did not deserve Paradise, therefore they did not know happiness either." I assume this was the beginning, or maybe the forerunner, of the doctrine of Purgatory.

    Regarding eschatology, Wikipedia reported that "Augustine originally believed that Christ would establish a literal 1,000-year kingdom prior to the general resurrection (premillennialism or chiliasm) but rejected the system as carnal. He was the first theologian to systematically expound a doctrine of amillennialism, although some theologians and Christian historians believe his position was closer to that of modern postmillennialists. The mediaeval Catholic church built its system of eschatology on Augustinian amillennialism, where the Christ rules the earth spiritually through his triumphant church."

    The idea of a "just war" has been made popular since Bush. Wikipedia said "Augustine developed a theology of just war, that is, war that is acceptable under certain conditions. Firstly, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain or as an exercise of power. Secondly, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. Thirdly, love must be a central motive even in the midst of violence."

    I found it no surprise that Augustine condemned the practice of induced abortion, but what I did find surprising, and new to me, was that "In his works, Augustine did consider that the gravity of participation in an abortion depended whether or not the fetus had yet received a soul at the time of abortion. He held that this ensoulment occurred at 40 days for males, and 90 for females. In the summer of 2008, this aspect of Augustine's thought (i.e., the gravity of abortion vis-a-vis the ensoulment of the fetus) was used by the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, in defence of her pro-choice political stance."

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'Christ certainly talked about satanic (demonic) beings in a literal sense in the Bible, and I fully believe that Christ not only believes in their existence, but He deals with them, and has dealt with them, on a personal level. Not only that, but he created them before their fall, just as He created humans before our fall.'

    Yes.

    Jeff, I appreciate the historical information.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. the blogosphere would be a better place if there were most posts on auggie, i think. :D

    best wishes,
    LoA.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks, LoA,

    I agree with you on Augustine. His theology should be strongly considered.

    My main page, thekingpin68.blogspot.com as of 8:48 PST is appearing minus any articles...hmm.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Augustine's view of interpretation is very interesting and when combined with a historical and scientific method of interpretation could possibly become a stronger method of biblical interpretation.
    Great Article!
    -Prudent Student-

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks, I found that in my PhD research Augustine's interpretations are often much debated in meaning. At least in the English translations, I reason he is a difficult read at times, as in lack of clarity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know, now that I think about it, I didn't even realize that abortion was practiced as long ago as in Augustine's day.

    The following Augustine quotes are from:
    Priests for Life: Teachings of the Catholic Church on Abortion

    Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

    "Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born."

    -De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17 (15)

    On the undeveloped fetus:

    "Hence in the first place arises a question about abortive conceptions, which have indeed been born in the mother's womb, but not so born that they could be born again. For if we shall decide that these are to rise again, we cannot object to any conclusion that may be drawn in regard to those which are fully formed. Now who is there that is not rather disposed to think that unformed abortions perish, like seeds that have never fructified? But who will dare to deny, though he may not dare to affirm, that at the resurrection every defect in the form shall be supplied, and that thus the perfection which time would have brought shall not be wanting, any more than the blemishes which time did bring shall be present: so that the nature shall neither want anything suitable and in harmony with it that length of days would have added, nor be debased by the presence of anything of an opposite kind that length of days has added; but that what is not yet complete shall be completed, just as what has been injured shall be renewed."

    -Enchiridion 23.85.4

    On therapeutic abortion:

    "And therefore the following question may be very carefully inquired into and discussed by learned men, though I do not know whether it is in man's power to resolve it: At what time the infant begins to live in the womb: whether life exists in a latent form before it manifests itself in the motions of the living being. To deny that the young who are cut out limb by limb from the womb, lest if they were left there dead the mother should die too, have never been alive, seems too audacious. Now, from the time that a man begins to live, from that time it is possible for him to die. And if he die, wheresoever death may overtake him, I cannot discover on what principle he can be denied an interest in the resurrection of the dead."

    -Enchiridion 23.86

    "Therefore brothers, you see how perverse they are and hastening wickedness, who are immature, they seek abortion of the conception before the birth; they are those who tell us, "I do not see that which you say must be believed."

    - Sermon 126, line 12

    ReplyDelete
  13. I actually came across that material from Enchiridion in my PhD research.

    Very good, Jeff.

    Russ

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey Russ,

    Those poor drunken animals, that was rather funny though!

    I am glad to hear that you are not yielding to those forward women Russ, may God continue to give you wisdom with them! PHEW! they seem CRAZY!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks very much, Tamela.

    Sadly, many of those women are professionals I reason.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Russ,
    I, personally do not see any need to evaluate Augustine's opinion concerning the existance of evil or satanic beings. The Bible discusses what is very clearly not stated as an allegory, the man possessed by a legion of demons. Jesus had conversed with the demons and cast them into a herd of pigs. And, the people of the town bore witness to the transformation of this formerly demon possessed man.

    So, does hermanutics need to be applied in the referenced text of the Bible.

    Now, I believe in hermanutics as a method of study that is very useful but not always applicable or needed for every passage of scripture. First example; refer back to the demon possessed man.

    I also think we can look to our personal experiences and know for certain that evil exist. Have I felt loved? Then, I know what it is to be despised. Have I felt vindicated? Then, I know what it is to be falsely accused. Have I been treated fairly? Then, I know what it is to have been treated poorly. The pressence of justice refers to evil.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Jim,

    Everyone uses hermeneutics when they read Scripture.

    I quoted:

    'In regard to hermeneutics and the existence of satanic beings, Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling explain hermeneutics is the discipline that studies the rules, principles, and theories of how a text, including Scripture, should be theologically interpreted. This would include the relationship between the author, text, and reader.[1] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard note that the word for hermeneutics comes from the Greek verb hermeneuin, meaning to explain, interpret or translate, while the noun hermeneia means interpretation or translation.[2] Charles Caldwell Ryrie (1974) states hermeneutics is the scientific method, which provides a principal of interpretation of Scripture, and these rules guide each reader’s system of theology.[3)

    Now, I do not take an allegorical method, but historical-grammatical while paying attention to background and methodology, but it is still a hermeneutical approach.

    Augustine is an important writer and although I differ with him on this point and some points concerning theodicy, I reason that he needs to be seriously considered by serious Christian scholars.

    Thanks, Jim.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What would a southern Baptist give as an explanation for the natural process of fermentation?
    Just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Intoxicated Animals, what's next on this Blog! This is what makes this blog so diverse and interesting!
    -Fantastic Elastic-

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks, Chucky.

    You come from a Mennonite background which features many that abstain from alcohol...what would be your answer?;)

    ReplyDelete
  21. The guy who first witnessed to me and introduced the idea of personal salvation to me was a black guy who was a Pentecostal. He bragged that "wine has never touched these lips." He said that when the Bible says "wine," it actually means "holy water."

    Personally, I rarely ever drink any alcohol. I don't like the taste of beer, and I despise the taste of mixed drinks or strong alcohol. I do like wine, however, especially red wine or plum wine. Long ago, I did get drunk maybe 2 or 3 times (from beer), but never enough to have a hangover. For a while, back in the 80's, I was drinking wine coolers, but they started giving me headaches. I was also into drinking sake for a time, but only a little bit. For many years now, I would say I drink 1-3 glasses of wine over the course of an entire year. That's it.

    Before I became a Christian (at 19), I never drank any alcohol whatsoever. Once on New Year's Eve, someone was insisting that I share champagne with them. Even though they got offended, I still refused. Even though I was not born again at that time, the years I spent reading the entire Bible through several times, deeply affected me.

    Many years ago, I visited the house of a Christian woman. When her husband was alive, I had considered them my spiritual mentors. I was shocked when she gave me wine to drink with my meal. But she was Italian, and that was natural for her.

    The Bible does not say it is wrong to drink. In fact, it states more than once that wine is basically a gift from God.

    "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." (Psalm 104:14,15)

    However, the Bible does call drunkenness a sin, and does speak against the dangers of too much wine (or alcohol):

    "Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise." (Proverbs 20:1)

    "He who loves pleasure will become poor; whoever loves wine and oil will never be rich." (Proverbs 21:17)

    "...whoever loves...oil will never be rich." Well, except for Arab oil. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  22. 'The Bible does not say it is wrong to drink. In fact, it states more than once that wine is basically a gift from God.

    "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." (Psalm 104:14,15)

    However, the Bible does call drunkenness a sin, and does speak against the dangers of too much wine (or alcohol):'

    Wise words and a good explanation of alcohol in regard to your life, Jeff.

    I drink quite little and like some lagers, wines and champagnes.

    Alcohol is neither a hang-up or obsession with me.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I've never heard an explanation from a Menno perspective myself, but I'd guess that fermentation would be akin to plant disease, and an effect of the fall...
    I prefer dark ales myself.

    ReplyDelete
  24. That is a decent possible explanation, Sir Charles.

    Thanks.

    Russ

    ReplyDelete
  25. that last additional bit... whew! that was strange!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks for the comment.

    Sadly I have received my share of those strange comments online over the last ten years.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete