But he wasn’t a platonist. Augustine’s philosophy is bizarre. His answers to a number of phil. questions are simply unique (well, him and Tertullian)
But it makes it ridiculous to claim that when you introject your axioms about free will into interpretation, that you are just invoking “common sense” and anyone who doesn’t see that axiom as necessary must be “influenced” by some other philosophy
-
-
Nope, it's merely appealing to the perspicuity of Scripture and its revelation in natural human languages which have accessible meanings that exist without having to resort to allegorical or esoteric flights of fancy.
-
It's the difference between starting with Scripture itself as the frame of reference and working forward from there versus starting with what people hundreds of years after the fact said *about* Scripture and working backwards
-
Otherwise, we'd have to conclude that a sound hermeneutics does not require actually referencing the source material (i.e. Scripture), which *would* be silly, I agree
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.