Friday, July 04, 2014

Augustine And Allegory In Brief

Morocco-trekearth 
















I found this brief section in my PhD work that did not make the dissertation before or after the PhD Viva.

Augustine And Allegory In Brief

Augustine’s hermeneutic included the idea that one should be mentally clear in regard to issues of God in order to receive guidance.[1]  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.[2]  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.[3]  Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling define allegory as a method of Biblical interpretation where ‘hidden’ or ‘deeper’ understandings are sought.[4]  This favours a ‘spiritual’ meaning over literal ones.[5]  Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard explain that this was the popular hermeneutical method within the era of the Church Fathers.[6] 

New Testament scholar, Klyne Snodgrass (1991) explains allegorical approaches would assign a spiritual meaning to specific texts, in particular ones difficult to interpret.[7]  Christian theology was often imposed on texts of the Old Testament, and this approach was common in the Christian Church until the Reformation.[8]  Although Augustine, for example, 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.[9]

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 (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw,  Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

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

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

ROBERTSON, F.W. (1887)(1956) ‘Sermons: First Series’, in Thiessen, Henry C. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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.


[1] Augustine (427)(1997: 13).
[2] I reason hermeneutically a scholar does not need to choose between a regimented scientific methodology, and trusting in divine guidance. 
[3] Robertson (1958)(1997: xi).
[4] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 8).
[5] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 8).
[6] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 32).
[7] Snodgrass (1991: 413).
[8] Snodgrass (1991: 413).
[9] Robertson (1958)(1997: xi).

23 comments:

  1. New co. policy, jacks @ all times even in summer heat while patrolling. Other co's on site do not wear blazers (or ties like we do). So, yes we look the best...

    Mr. S was 'thrilled' with the news when I called him and told him to report with blazer on weekend.

    'Those guy'...

    So, if I keel over he, or one of my other two co-workers can have fun with one of the corp. employees or other security co. workers hauling my muscular a** off the concrete, or if I am quite fortunate, off the grass.

    They should get Batdog to drag me but then as someone said I would have bite marks...

    I do agree with the policy in general, as far as better appearance and it looks more professional, no question, and I wear the jacket as much as possible, but we had a dehydrated officer from another co. on site the other nite and in the summer, Mr. S, for example does struggle as do others.

    I stated my concerns as will Mr. S...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you to Dean Hintz and Anjela Hintz for hosting me at pub and home for my first birthday party this weekend. Princess Anjela found it amusing that
    I lampoon them on the satire blog, although in love. While others of various locations, perhaps wisely hide, appearing only to lurk and perhaps sneak in a comment, especially Mr. B. Buff, the Hintz assist with the material. Thank you...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Slaying yesterday’s dragons
    by Robert Carter

    Article from:
    Creation
    35(3):12-14
    June 2013
    Illustrated by Caleb Salisbury
    Slaying-dragon
    Darwinism as a science has been evolving. That is, it has changed from its original concept and continues to change. It would do us well to pay attention to the latest trends so as not to be caught arguing against yesterday’s theory. When Charles Darwin initially postulated that all living species could be traced back to a single common ancestor, he suggested the mechanism causing these changes was natural selection.1 That was in 1859. Later, he backed off from his initial hypothesis and suggested that other forms of selection (e.g., sexual selection2) were not only involved, but were more important. Worse, not knowing anything about genetics, he came up with and strongly promoted a Lamarckian3 idea that the environment caused changes in organisms which were then inherited by their offspring. This was contradicted by his contemporary, Gregor Mendel, who published the laws of genetics4 in 1862, but that was the state of evolutionary theory at the close of the 19th century.

    More changes occurred when genetics was finally brought under the Darwinian umbrella in the early 20th century. This involved a wholesale rejection of much of Darwin’s later writings and eventually led to the ‘Modern Synthesis’ of evolution, genetics, and population genetics under which most biologists today were trained. This ‘gene-centric’ view dealt with populations and gene pools, ignoring the fact that the individual (a complex combination of traits) was the unit of selection and not individual genes. Proponents of this view also ran into mathematical difficulties5 early on, but these were pushed aside by further speculation that most of the genome was junk DNA.6

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now that we have entered the 21st century, things are changing once again. As we have learned more about genetics and the inner workings of the cell, neo-Darwinism (another name for the Modern Synthesis) is having to adapt. Evolutionists have had a difficult time explaining incredibly complex systems like the human genome, and the naturalistic origin of life flies in the face of all known laws of physics, chemistry, genetics, probability, and information theory. The idea that most of our DNA is ‘junk’6 is now untenable. The mathematical difficulties discovered decades ago are only getting worse as our understanding of life becomes more and more complex. What is an evolutionist to do?

    Thomas Kuhn, a famous philosopher of science, said that scientific revolutions occur every several generations. When a new theory rises to the top, it is promoted heavily. The next generation of scientists runs with it, often using it as a basic assumption of how things work. Eventually, however, enough cognitive dissonance7 is raised, especially among the younger scientists who often find older ideas unsatisfactory, that a wholesale turnover of ideas occurs. For example, the phlogiston theory of combustion once ruled academia, but a few experiments in the late 1700s put an end to it. Another revolution occurred in the 1960s when plate tectonics suddenly replaced a geology based on static continental blocks. A scientific theory tends to have a certain amount of inertia and it takes a considerable effort to change it once it is established as a ruling paradigm, but it can change.

    Will another revolution occur in evolutionary theory? Probably so, and we can see early rumblings of it already. This is not to say that lots of scientists are going to become biblical creationists, but that there are a significant number of people in science who are less than satisfied by mainstream ideas of how evolution works. We can see young scientists pushing the pagan-esque Gaia hypothesis8 and others talking about nebulous self-organizing properties supposedly inherent in matter that drive evolution inexorably forward.9There is a Kuhnian10 revolution in the works, no doubt. The movers and shakers of the new revolution, though, are leaving mathematics and population genetics (because these failed Darwin and because the problems have not been resolved by neo-Darwinism, i.e. the Modern Synthesis) and are turning to more philosophically speculative ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Things are shifting under our feet. We need to be careful not to be caught slaying yesterday’s dragon. Yet, the new trends within science do not necessarily require a different type of counter-argument. Interestingly, I find myself arguing population genetics as a cogent weapon when confronted by these newer ideas. I find myself talking about what we know about physics and chemistry and how that contradicts all ideas about the physical origin of life from non-life. I find myself saying that what we have discovered through experimental science argues against there being any inherent property in matter that would drive it to spontaneously form high-level organizational structures, let alone codified information strings.11 It is as if they are suddenly admitting to a ‘Darwin of the Gaps’ model of evolution while we creationists stick to empirical science, and I find this ironic, even oddly humorous.

    Although evolutionary theory is threatening to change its basis, the argument has not really changed all that much. Why is this? Because evolution is a smokescreen for a raging spiritual battle. The how of evolution is really not all that important, and evolutionists will readily shift their beliefs about the mechanism behind it, often using these shifts to claim science is self-correcting. The alleged fact of evolution, however, must be defended by its adherents at all costs, because there is no escape from accountability to a Creator unless nature made itself somehow.

    Although this shift away from neo-Darwinism is certainly not yet the majority view, it is a rapidly popularizing trend within science. It seems, therefore, as if the big question we are going to face in the future is similar to one faced when trying to share the Gospel with the new generation of public school kids (you know, the ones that could not say that taking down the Twin Towers was an act of evil men). That is, how do you talk to a science buff who has left empirical science and whose mind is full of philosophical speculation?

    In short, there is, to this point, no coherent science coming from this new paradigm of neo-pagan metaphysics with nature as a self-creating entity, demonstrating that the battle is really being waged at a deeper philosophical level. Therefore, the creationist arguments that have been developed over the past several decades remain relevant and powerful. Resources like The Creation Answers Book, creation.com, Journal of Creation and Creation magazine are still the best sources of information one can use to prepare a defence, for there is nothing truly new under the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Darwinism has always been questionable and opposed to the Biblical account on a worldview level.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The old lady who was always a regular church member had finally talked her cousin, a very free spirit, into joining the Church.

    “Tell me, Reverend," the old lady asked, "Do you feel that my cousin will have her sins forgiven after all those years?"

    "Yes I do. I'm positive of it. You must remember that the greater the number of sins, the greater the glory."

    "Really, Reverend? Golly, I sure do wish I'd known that fifty years ago."

    …..Doc’s Daily Chuckle (pkaine@roadrunner.com) by way of “Christian Voices” (ChristianVoices@att.net)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I really like people from Brasil, in general, but I am glad the Brasil football facade took a big hit.

    Hopefully, next Argentina, and I like people from there in general too...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Making $21,781.77 in just 12 Hours!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Flash player Sent By Gift inside. YOU MUST CLAIM THIS NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brand New Simple Money Maker

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tendon breakthrough upends 31 years of accepted joint science

    ReplyDelete
  13. The problem with political jokes is they get elected. ~ Henry Cate, VII

    …..Mikey’s Funnies (http://www.mikeysfunnies.com) by way of “Christian Voices” (ChristianVoices@att.net)

    ReplyDelete
  14. We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. ~ Aesop

    …..Mikey’s Funnies (http://www.mikeysfunnies.com) by way of “Christian Voices” (ChristianVoices@att.net)

    ReplyDelete
  15. If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these State of the Union speeches, there wouldn't be any inducement to go to heaven. ~ Will Rogers

    …..Mikey’s Funnies (http://www.mikeysfunnies.com) by way of “Christian Voices” (ChristianVoices@att.net)

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians. ~ Charles de Gaulle

    …..Mikey’s Funnies (http://www.mikeysfunnies.com) by way of “Christian Voices” (ChristianVoices@att.net)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks. ~ Doug Larson

    …..Mikey’s Funnies (http://www.mikeysfunnies.com) by way of “Christian Voices” (ChristianVoices@att.net)

    ReplyDelete