First, I’ve read Augustine; it’s pretty thickly Biblical. I respect your opinion but I’m sure you realize that his use of source texts is denser, more perspicuous, more consistent with the unanimous opinion of the patres, and much more careful to avoid assumptions than yours
-
-
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @AristotradX4 and
Undoubtedly you have different treatments in mind that you consider better models than your own exegesis, I understand that - just realize why this sounds weak as a defense of your own position
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @AristotradX4 and
It is worth actually reading the “philosophical” parts of Augustine carefully b/c it makes the distinction between Christian doctrine and Christian philosophy v clear
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The whole point is that there can't really be a "Christian" philosophy. There can be philosophies which Christians can (at least in parts) accept, but a "Christian adaptation of, say, Plato is spurious. It's attempting to reconcile systems that God tells us not to reconcile
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
lol, there is. when Augustine is asking doctrinal questions, he focuses on Bible. But accepting Biblical doctrine gives him (Christian) opinions on certain matters. Now when he goes to ask *philosophical* questions, what happens?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @AristotradX4 and
Augustine didn’t think the Bible was a philosophy handbook of course. He has a letter or sermon condemning ppl who bring ridicule upon the Church by acting as though the articles of faith give them technical expertise on q’s astronomy, etc
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @AristotradX4 and
But he still does have faith in the truth of the doctrine the Gospel *does* contain, and those truths can in effect serve as axioms for philosophical inquiry
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @AristotradX4 and
You say he’s a platonist and elsewhere imply he fell afoul of Paul’s strictures on pagan vanity
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'd say he reversed the approach, using philosophy as a framework for approaching revealed truths, rather than the other way around. I've no problem with using the Gospel as a starting point for "philosophising" about everything else...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AristotradX4 @QuasLacrimas and
Philosophy is not a valid means of *building* a hermeneutics, however
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Right I think I agree. What Philo does, eg, isn’t heretical so long as you remind yourself it’s not biblical doctrine
-
-
Replying to @QuasLacrimas @AristotradX4 and
Likewise I have thought quite careful about what we can reasonably infer about prehistory from Genesis, given what we know from archaeology and previously confirmed sections; this is not exegesis, but it’s also not sensible unless you believe it’s an accurate document
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.