augustine on the platonists

In City of God, Augustine has entire book dedicated to his love affair with the Platonists.

From Book VIII:

Let all those philosophers, then, give place, as we have said, to the Platonists…

These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above the rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God, and therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God. They have seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God, and therefore they have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the supreme. They have seen also that, in every changeable thing, the form which makes it that which it is, whatever be its mode or nature, can only be through Him who truly is, because He is unchangeable… They have understood, from this unchangeableness and this simplicity, that all things must have been made by Him, and that He could Himself have been made by none.

…whether these philosophers may be more suitably called Platonists… and the Pythagoreans… we prefer these to all other philosophers, and confess that they approach nearest to us.

Posted in Augustine, Calvinism, Church Fathers, God, Immutablility, Plato, Theology | Leave a comment

augustine and his infatuation with the platonists

I have wrote before that Augustine only converted to Christianity after his mentor explained to him that the Bible could be taken figuratively and the Platonists were correct in their philosophy. Here are Augustine’s own words:

Confessions, Book 6:

6. I rejoiced also that the old Scriptures of the law and the prophets were laid before me, to be perused, not now with that eye to which they seemed most absurd before, when I censured Your holy ones for so thinking, whereas in truth they thought not so; and with delight I heard Ambrose, in his sermons to the people, oftentimes most diligently recommend this text as a rule—The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life; while, drawing aside the mystic veil, he spiritually laid open that which, accepted according to the letter, seemed to teach perverse doctrines— teaching herein nothing that offended me, though he taught such things as I knew not as yet whether they were true…

And:

Confessions, Book 8:

But when I mentioned to him that I had read certain books of the Platonists, which Victorinus, sometime Professor of Rhetoric at Rome (who died a Christian, as I had been told), had translated into Latin, he congratulated me that I had not fallen upon the writings of other philosophers, which were full of fallacies and deceit, after the rudiments of the world, [Colossians 2:8] whereas they, in many ways, led to the belief in God and His word.

Simplicianus and Ambrose convinced Augustine that the Bible was to be taken figuratively. Notice how Augustine read the Bible on face value. Augustine called it “absurd”, he said “the letter kills”, he called it “perverse doctrines”, and he called it “offensive”. It was only through Simplicanus and Amborse spiritualizing the text in a Platonic sense that Augustine finally accepted the Bible. In short, Augustine was able to see the natural reading of the Bible, and Augustine rejected it because it was antithetical to Plantonism (that “god” cannot change).

Augustine writes that the only use for the Bible is charity. All other theology can be derived from the Platonists.

Confessions, Book 7:

…[God] procured for me, by the instrumentality of one inflated with most monstrous pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin… For I discovered in those books that… before all times, and above all times, Your only-begotten Son remains unchangeably co-eternal with You…

26. But having then read those books of the Platonists, and being admonished by them to search for incorporeal truth, I saw Your invisible things, understood by those things that are made; [Romans 1:20] and though repulsed, I perceived what that was, which through the darkness of my mind I was not allowed to contemplate,— assured that You were, and were infinite, and yet not diffused in space finite or infinite; and that Thou truly art, who art the same ever, varying neither in part nor motion; and that all other things are from You, on this most sure ground alone, that they are. Of these things was I indeed assured, yet too weak to enjoy You… For where was that charity building upon the foundation of humility, which is Jesus Christ? 1 Corinthians 3:11 Or, when would these books teach me it? Upon these, therefore, I believe, it was Your pleasure that I should fall before I studied Your Scriptures, that it might be impressed on my memory how I was affected by them… had I afterwards fallen upon those volumes, they might perhaps have withdrawn me from the solid ground of piety; or, had I stood firm in that wholesome disposition which I had thence imbibed, I might have thought that it could have been attained by the study of those books alone.

Augustine’s characteristics for the books of the Platonists are “pride” and “knowledge”. Augustine, even after becoming a Christian, held Platonism in high regard. This is in contrast to his disdain for the natural meaning of the Bible text, which he calls “absurd”, “killing”, “perverse”, and “offensive”. Biblical theology was to be rejected all except one point. The Platonists gave Augustine all Augustine’s theology except “charity”. In fact Augustine writes: “I might have thought that it could have been attained by the study of [Platonist] books alone.”

Posted in Augustine, Calvinism, Church Fathers, Church History, God, Immutablility, Theology | 1 Comment

God does not demand human sacrifices

In Judges 11, there is a particular incident pointed to by Bible critics about God accepting a human sacrifice. Although the text may describe that, the best understanding is a conversion to perpetual virginity (not a human sacrifice):

Jdg 11:30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands,
Jdg 11:31 then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”

Jephthah was a mighty warrior and became judge of Israel for 6 years. When fighting Israel’s enemies, Jephthah gives a vow to offer the first thing he meets when returning from the conquest. He says he will offer it as a “burnt offering.” When returning home, he sees his daughter:

Jdg 11:34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.

One thing of note is that the text points out that this is Jephthah’s only daughter. Assumedly, the text to drawing focus to the fact that Jephthah is losing any chance at grandchildren. This is an interesting focus if Jephthah was going to kill his daughter. Although the point might be that his love was not split between multiple children, the text continues and focuses on his daughter’s virginity:

Jdg 11:35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it.”
Jdg 11:36 So she said to him, “My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon.”
Jdg 11:37 Then she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I.”
Jdg 11:38 So he said, “Go.” And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains.

Jephthah’s unnamed daughter agrees to go along with Jephthah’s plan. She mourns her “virginity” for two months. Why does she not quick have relations with a man? What is stopping her from marrying a man quickly in order to solve the problem of her two months of mourning? Perhaps her real problem is that she does not have children? But the text seems to ignore that as her particular issue:

Jdg 11:39 And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel
Jdg 11:40 that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

At the end of the story the daughter returns to the father. Jephthah carries out his “vow”. The text then reads she “knew no man” (figuratively meaning she was still a virgin). Then the text describes women of Israel mourning her four days of each year.

At the time the vow was performed, there was not enough time to have a baby if she had gotten pregnant. The focus seems to be on her virginity, and not her childlessness. This seems to suggest that the “burnt offering” was not a literal burnt offering. Jephthah did not burn his child alive, but offered her as a spiritual burnt offering: “a perpetual virgin for the Lord”. This would fit the context. Jephthah is mourning not having grandchildren. His daughter mourns her virginity (and doesn’t solve the problem). Then the vow is coupled with his daughter still being a virgin.

Sacrifices seem to be used figuratively elsewhere in the Bible. In Phillipians, Paul describes a monetary offering as a burnt sacrifice:

Php 4:16 For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities.
Php 4:17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account.
Php 4:18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God.

In Genesis, Cain offers fruit as his offering (showing that all offerings were not necessarily death):

Gen 4:3 And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD.

In Psalms, David describes his “broken heart” as an acceptable substitute for “burnt offering”:

Psa 51:16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering.
Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart— These, O God, You will not despise.

With these facts in mind, and the fact that God abhors human sacrifice (so much that it never thought Israel would ever do it), we can be safe assuming “a lost lineage” was Jephthah’s burnt offering. And this took the form of his daughter’s perpetual virginity.

Adam Clarke writes about the last sentence:

I am satisfied that this is not a correct translation of the original [Hebrew]. Houbigant translates the whole verse thus: …“But this custom prevailed in Israel that the virgins of Israel went at different times, four days in the year, to the daughter of Jephthah, that they might comfort her.” This verse also gives evidence that the daughter of Jephthah was not sacrificed: nor does it appear that the custom or statute referred to here lasted after the death of Jephthah’s daughter.

Posted in Bible, Figures of Speech, Jewish History, Morality, Theology | Leave a comment

krugman loses all grasp of reality

From a recent post by Paul Krugman talking about Unemployment Insurance. As a background, Classical view states that if you pay someone to be unemployed, they will stay unemployed longer than otherwise. Here is Krugman:

But if you follow right-wing talk — by which I mean not Rush Limbaugh but the Wall Street Journal and famous economists like Robert Barro — you see the notion that aid to the unemployed can create jobs dismissed as self-evidently absurd. You think that you can reduce unemployment by paying people not to work? Hahahaha!

Quite aside from the fact that this ridicule is dead wrong,

Notice his arrogance. Aside from the fact that everyone I have ever talked to who was on unemployment insurance always talked about maximizing their benefit (only would resume searching for work when their “insurance” was running out), Krugman is militantly making the claim that people getting free money (to not work!) will be encouraged to seek a job.

As a corollary, my theory is that if the left pays absurd amounts to a Noble Laureate then he might write militantly ridiculous articles violating all common sense to further the left’s agenda.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Labor, Leftists | Leave a comment

restraint of free will

From the Contemporary Calvinist:

I find it strange that Arminians [substitute Open Theists] always focus on whether or not God actively causes men to sin. Why don’t they ever seem to be just as concerned about whether or not God actively restrains men from sinning? Wouldn’t that also be a violation of free will?

Calvinists seem to try to make this point often. If Pharaoh’s army is crossing the Red Sea and God impedes them by crashing the waves upon them from all sides, this is claimed as a “violation of free will”. Because God is killing people, he is not letting them use their “free will” to cross the Red Sea.

Contrary to what the Calvinists claim, that is absolutely not a violation of free will; free will involves overriding someone’s internal will in order to override their internal thinking. Free will is not about physical or mental constraints imposed by reality. Just because gravity exists, does not mean my “free will” to want to be weightless is overridden. My “will” to be weightless exists whether or not I can make it a reality.

To illustrate: My children have free will. They chose whether to fight amongst each other or play nicely. But when they do choose to fight, I may step in and resolve the matter. When faced with possible consequences and barriers to fighting, my children decide whether to try to defy me or back down. Defying me can be in a mental or physical aspect. Because I am about 8 times their weight, physical resistance usually is not a good choice (another plus: I never lose a “tickle” fight). Mental defiance in my children, I cannot control.

While I can never flip a switch to make my children obedient, I can help guide their mentality towards obedience. I might “break” them, as we commonly use the term. “Breaking” them involves changing their mind due to external stimulus. Only when I am able to convince them that they need to change will they actually change. I can do nothing except guide, lead, and convince.

God does this too. King Nebuchadnezzar was a great and mighty king. Daniel 4 describes an instance in which God wants to humble King Nebuchadnezzar:

Dan 4:24 this is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king:
Dan 4:25 They shall drive you from men, your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make you eat grass like oxen. They shall wet you with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses.
Dan 4:26 “And inasmuch as they gave the command to leave the stump and roots of the tree, your kingdom shall be assured to you, after you come to know that Heaven rules.

God cannot just override Nebuchadnezzar’s will. It would be infinitely easier for God to just “enforce” His will by overriding human will. God need not “flood the Egyptians” (Exo 14), “make Zacharias mute” (Luk 1), or “send lying spirits to convince false prophets” (1Ki 22). If God overrode wills, God could just “make the Egyptians decide to turn around”, “make Zacharias name his son John”, and “make Ahab decide to go to battle”. But the Bible does not describe this. God instead uses his resources to physically and mentally stop and manipulate people. God plagues Nebuchadnezzar both physically and mentally, turns him into a psychotic beast, in order to make him humble. This works, and Nebuchadnezzar is much more humble than before the humiliation.

This is in contrast to a robot. A robot has no free will. It is every programmer’s dream to even simulate free will. A robot cannot truly choose to perform an action. Instead, every decision is determined by coding. Even computer generated “random” number are not truly random numbers, but instead determined by complex formulas. Computers, even if not physically or mentally restrained, do not have free will.

Free will is not constrained by physical and mental impediments. Free will is our internal decisions, apart from physical and mental capabilities or limitations. When Calvinists see God killing someone as “limiting that person’s will” we should correct them. God impedes individuals, but nowhere in the Bible “limits their will”.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Jewish History, Open Theism, Theology | 16 Comments

augustine embraced violence on his critics

From Augustine’s letter to Vincentius:

16. You now see therefore, I suppose, that the thing to be considered when any one is coerced, is not the mere fact of the coercion, but the nature of that to which he is coerced, whether it be good or bad: not that any one can be good in spite of his own will, but that, through fear of suffering what he does not desire, he either renounces his hostile prejudices, or is compelled to examine truth of which he had been contentedly ignorant; and under the influence of this fear repudiates the error which he was wont to defend, or seeks the truth of which he formerly knew nothing, and now willingly holds what he formerly rejected. […] For originally my opinion was, that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason, lest we should have those whom we knew as avowed heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics. But this opinion of mine was overcome not by the words of those who controverted it, but by the conclusive instances to which they could point. For, in the first place, there was set over against my opinion my own town, which, although it was once wholly on the side of Donatus, was brought over to the Catholic unity by fear of the imperial edicts, but which we now see filled with such detestation of your ruinous perversity, that it would scarcely be believed that it had ever been involved in your error.

Posted in Augustine, Church History | Leave a comment

how to have a rational discussion

A meme on facebook:

christopher fisher reality is not optional

Posted in critical thinking, Uncommon Sense | Leave a comment

quotable quote on open theism

From twitter user nimberlake:

“The future is not created yet. We create it together with God.”

When a man wishes to marry a woman, the same theme applies. He sees her has building a future with him. He chooses her to shape a mutual future.

God declares Israel as his bride. God, throughout the Old Testament, begs Israel to shape that future with Him. But Israel refuses, and God is continually hurt.

Posted in quotes | Leave a comment

huffpo gets something right

From a post titled “5 Common Misconceptions About the Bible“:

The character “Yahweh” in the Hebrew Bible should not be confused with the god of western theological speculation (generally referred to as “God”). The attributes assigned to “God” by post-biblical theologians — such as omniscience and immutability — are simply not attributes possessed by the character Yahweh as drawn in biblical narratives. Indeed, on several occasions Yahweh is explicitly described as changing his mind, because when it comes to human beings his learning curve is steep. Humans have free will; they act in ways that surprise him and he must change tack and respond. One of the greatest challenges for modern readers of the Hebrew Bible is to allow the text to mean what it says, when what is says flies in the face of doctrines that emerged centuries later from philosophical debates about the abstract category “God.”

Posted in Bible, God, Omniscience, Textual Criticism | Leave a comment

the historicity of the resurrection

From NT Wright’s Surprised by Hope. After talking about various alternative secular theories about Jesus, he writes:

[W]e must at least note that the main alternative accounts, the revisionist proposals, lack explanatory power…

But at this moment in the argument all the signposts are pointing in one direction. I and others have studied quite extensively all the alternative explanations, ancient and modern, for the rise of the early church and the shape of its belief. Far and away the best historical explanation is that Jesus of Nazareth, having been thoroughly dead and buried, really was raised to life on the third day with a renewed body (not a “resuscitated corpse,” as people sometimes dismissively say), a new kind of physical body, which left an empty tomb behind because it had used up the material of Jesus’s original body and which possessed new properties that nobody had expected or imagined but that generated significant mutations in the thinking of those who encountered it. If something like this happened, it would perfectly explain why Christiainity began and why it took the shape it did…

Historical argument alone cannot force anyone to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, but historical argument is remarkably good at clearing away the undergrowth behind which skepticisms of various sorts have long been hiding.

Posted in Church History, History, Jesus | 1 Comment