Talk:Augustine of Hippo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Vandals or Vandalism? Retractations

But seriously...

The work "Retractations" (not "ReTRACTions" as if it were a work about taking back everything he'd previously written, RATHER a going back over what he had written) is hard to find on the web, but can be ordered in print form (a bit less than 300 pages, in translation). Completed in 427 CE, towards the end of his life, he goes back over his 93 written works, and for the most part, simply states when and where he wrote it and why, plus the first line of the work to identify it. In a few cases he clarifies what he meant by it (for instance, in "On the Free Choice of the Will" he comments on how Pelagians were attempting to use this work to support their cause, but had done so selectively, so he quotes various sections from it that demonstrate their abuse of the text). Occasionally he makes corrections, noting changes in his understanding, but for the most part he stands by what he wrote, pointing to his other works where clarification is needed. He also apologizes for the roughness of incomplete works and explains why he was not able to finish them.

Still, this work continues to often by listed incorrectly as "The RETRACTIONS" in many online book lists or articles, and even as the cover title of some reprints.

Section without a home

I did the same again as someone seems to have reverted it without providing an explanation. My edits can certainly be improved. "primarily on the grounds that the Vandals adhered to the Arian branch of christianity" is not a perfect use of words, and I can understand the use of the word heresy in this case since Arianism didn't survive, unlike the Orthodox and Catholic branches.

Using the word heresy about a separate religion however is not acceptable for the Wikipedia, even if it is an extinct one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.122.26.70 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have rewordedso as to take both positions on board; Arianism wasn`t meanstream Christianity but it was 'christian'. Calling it a 'heresy' while not incorrect does leave a POV-ish taste, so I`m using the term heterodox instead. I hope this is found acceptable. --Isolani 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Heresy" was a neutral term in the time of Josephus, but by Augustine's time it was a polemical term for false or corrupt teachings or beliefs. "Heterodox" or "held to be a heresy by ____" would be acceptable substitutes. "Sect," "faith" or "movement" (or even "party") would also be applicable in certain cases.

I changed two instances where the article seems to have been written from a christian point of view into a more neutral one. There may be others.

"and was noted for combating the Manichaean heresy, to which he had formerly adhered." into "and was noted for combating the Manichaean religion, to which he had formerly adhered."

and "primarily on the grounds that the Vandals adhered to the Arian heresy" into "primarily on the grounds that the Vandals adhered to the Arian branch of christianity"

feel free to remove this text from the talk page when it is no longer relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.122.129.60 (talk) 02:12, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

The writer asserts that the Church of England repudiated the doctrine of Original Sin in the 16th century. This assertion is confuted by the XXXIX Articles of Religion, that Church's official doctrinal statement dating from said century. --James Barlow

Biography done (Sept 01)

Well, I for one am a historian and am sorta finished. Theology and Philosophy are up to others! --MichaelTinkler

Is it really accurate to describe his youth as "hedonistic"? In the Confessions he describes himself as being quieter and meeker than the other boys. Even with his mistress he seemed to be faithful. -Mike Kunz

I don't think he ever uses the term to describe himself, but in "The Confessions" he does berate his lack of control of his sexual desires. For a time he was a skeptic, but a "hedonist" sounds too much like a follower of a specific philosophy so perhaps the term should be avoided. Basically he is saying that for a time he bought into the sexual mores of those around him, which by Christian standards of his day were rather sinful.

It is completely anachronistic and innacurate to say St. Augustine was born in "Souk-Ahras" in the side box. This should say "Tagaste" I would change it if I new how to edit the side boxes.

The use of "Catholic" in phrases like "raised as a Catholic" or "to become a Catholic" or "converted to Catholic Christianity" struck me as anachronistic. I'm not an expert on early Church history, but it seems inaccurate to refer to "Catholic Christianity" in the fourth and fifth centuries. How strong were the differences between the Christians in the east and those in the west? And are those differences meaningful or relevant in the context of a person who is a Manichean converting to Christianity? Could Michael, or some other expert on early Church history, weigh in on this?

GreenMountain1965 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Karl

It's not anachronistic to call Augustine a "Catholic" or a "Catholic Christian." In his own works he repeatedly refers to the "Catholic faith" and "Catholic Church" and "Catholics." The term is used by him to differentiate between the "one true" Church established by Christ and the Apostles, and the "heretical" Christians and churches such as the Arians, Donatists, Pelagians, Manichees, etc (all of whom claim themselves to be following the true way, and in the case of the Donatists, consider themselves to be the only true Christians). He was a "Catholic" in every sense of the word as it was understood in his day, and he himself uses the term to describe his belief and identity in his works. The Churches of the East at this time were considered to also be following the "Catholic" faith by those like Augustine. It was only "heretics" and "schismatics" who were calling themselves Christians, that he did not consider to be "Catholic." And just FYI, I'm a third year theology grad student. If you doubt me, just take a look through his works, which are online, if you wish or consult any scholarly work on Augustine.

Portrait? (Mar 03)

Is the picture a portrait of St Augustine? If not, is it Wikipedia-relevant? --Sebastjan

It's relevant regardless. Should have a caption though.

I noticed that this page uses a rather unclear portrait of Saint Augustine. I happen to have a pic of an old fresco of Saint Augustine which I think is more relevant as it portrays his personality as well as his ethnic characteristics, which I consider significant given his status in the early Church.

File uploaded here: http://i9.tinypic.com/40c33f8.jpg

I would certainly prefer an inaccurate, but iconic, full-colour portrait of Augustine over an equally inaccurate, obscure black-and-white restoration, even if it does not show his features very well - they're made up anyway. I'd go with the image you proposed, or even this one, [1], which is apparently the oldest portrait known of Augustine and may therefore claim some authoriy. A pity, though, that the quality of the image is rather poor. Iblardi 10:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Theologian

Added a bit under "influence as a theologian" and retitled section to "theologian and thinker" to make a start re: Michael's point above. Thanks for a great start to the article!
Moss Hart 00:58 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I revised the section about original sin, removing the comment that Augustine was responsible for the survival of the doctrine in Western Christianity. Christians before Augustine understood original sin, and I do not think we can verify that if Augustine had not lived, the church would have forgotten this teaching. --LawrenceTrevallion 16:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, Original Sin currently exists within Orthodox Christianity, which has never known Augustine - so case in point. Lostcaesar 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Augustine was african, was he not? The photo needs to be changed to something more moorish.

Canonization and elevation to Doctor of the Church

Regarding his canonization: In the early years of the Catholic Church, one could become a saint simply by popular recognition of one's sainthood; Augustine was canonized in this manner. --Mirv 18:51, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Regarding his elevation to Doctor of the Church, an Encyclical[2] from Pope Pius XI in 1930 suggests that Pope Adrian I was the first to declare him a Doctor, but doesn't come out and state it. Gentgeen 15:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Berber?

Was saint Augustine a Berber ?

Yes, he was of Berber descent, his mother Monica, was a Berber. Her name derived from the Libyan deity Mon worshipped in the neighbouring town of Thibilis. Throughout his life, Augustine’s background as a Berber always remained an influential source on his thinking. However, we don’t have any information that Monica’s husband was a Berber too.--Rpetit212.158.75.197 11:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There has never been any doubt among historians regarding Augustine's Berber ethnicity. According most of them, not only was Thagaste a center of Berber culture, but his own name, and those of his mother and son, are all either Berber, or Berber-derived in their meaning. Monnica is a Berber name and Adeodatus, the name of Augustine's son is without doubt a Latinization of Iatanbaal (given by God). Ferguson mentions additional evidence of Augustine's Berber heredity, including the apparant "outsider's style" of his discussion of the Roman empire in "The City of God" and a nationalist attitude in the "Confessions". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.28.127.128 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Berber or Punic?

If St. Augustine was 'Berber', why was his language Punic, the language of the people of Carthage? Is not Carthage a Phoenician settlement in North Africa? Is not Punic a derivative of Phoenician? And, lastly, is not the name 'Berber' developed rather later, from 'Barbarian' and referring mainly to the descendants of the Vandals and other Germanic tribes that invaded and settled North Africa? 03:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Augustine was born not in Carthage but in a Numidian city named Tagaste. Carthage built by the Phoenicians in 814 BC was completely destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC and a new city was rebuilt by the Romans on the same land 100 years later. Carthagian civilization (named also Punic) was a mix of Phoenician and Libyan (Berber) culture/ethnic.

Before the Romans arrived, Punic was the language of culture and 700 years after the destruction of Carthage, Berbers in the Libyan hinterlands were still speaking Punic as well as Latin. Berber people (see Berber (Etymology)) are indigenous people of North Africa (they were known under many names, for instance Libyans, Numidians, Moors, Africans..). During their history, they used to speak Punic, Latin, Arab, French and most of them now speak Arabic (that's why they are sometines named wrongly "Arabs" whereas they are white africans) but Berber and French are still spoken too. (A lot of books have been written about Berber People and North Africa but most of them are only in french language)

Unexplained deletions

On June 21, User:210.5.104.222 deleted the Bibliography, External links, See also and Letters sections of this article with no explanation. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=210.5.104.222). If I don't hear otherwise, I'll go ahead and revert the changes in a few hours. mennonot 11:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I reverted the article and noticed that this is the second time those four sections have been deleted by an ip starting with "210.5.10". Strange... mennonot 14:29, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Philosophy

Why isnt it mentioned that St. Augustine is the originator of the famous "Angels on a Pinhead" question?CheeseDreams 00:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um... I think because it was actually Thomas Aquinas. But perhaps I am confused? 68.95.145.185Maria Maria

Actually, neither. It is a complete urban myth - albeit one that is nearly 500 years old. No mediaeval author ever discussed the question, and it was used as a rhetorical attack on scholasticism by various humanist authors. Unless anyone can quote it to me from a mediaeval source, of course! Hackloon 23:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hackloon is right. The "Angels on a Pinhead" was the popular, satirical response to Angelology, specifically, Aquinas' Angelology in The Summa. It's more or less a joke because Aquinas uses all of his merit to answer seemingly very unimportant questions about the nature of Angels, their essence, whether their essence is of their nature, and another host of questions that are difficult for almost anybody to understand... so the question of course is, If the Angelic nature is aeveternity, and hence, aevspaciality; and if they can only motivate one body, then how many angels would fit on the head of a pin ;-) 68.116.186.63 00:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Letter from Birmingham Jail

In Martin Luther King Jr's Letter from Birmingham Jail, he quotes Saint Augustine as saying that an unjust law is no law at all. Exacly where did Augustine write this? A link to a site with the full quotation and context would be appreciated as well.

This quote DOES, in fact, exist but it's in one of his less known works, "On Free Choice and the Will" (see Book 1, section 5, n. 11). Someone should try to make this text available online because I could not find it except by going to Amazon and doing a "search inside".

I do not think that this was from Augustine, but rather, Aquinas. Lex malla, lex nulla is usually attributed to Aquinas, and I'm sure that a quick google search could churn up the source... I don't know it off hand. 68.116.186.63 00:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Augustine's fiction

It is rarely stated that Augstine's most famous work, namely the City of God, is utopian fiction. That posterity chooses to read his utopian fiction as 'proven' fact is a serious error. In particular, the unconscionable misinformation regarding Genesis 2 & 3, and which he ad-libs in Chapters 12,13 and 14 of the City of God, should make everyone think thrice before accepting Augustine as an authority. Nagig

Nagig, you have written that I should not edit articles to suit my encyclopediac taste. I will try to clarify myself now...

People may use wikipedia as a source for their college works or other studential works. If you add things that are mainly your beliefs, it will be difficult for those people to back their work with credible sources. Many people on this earth believe that Augustine was a very important person and hold him in high esteem and likewise a majority of people do believe that Augstine wrote important theological work. And this is what Wikipedia reports. We do not call the Bible merely a work of fiction for the same reason, which is that we do not write our own opinions. Please read about NPOV, the perhaps most important principle on Wiki.

The edits you made were of controversial sort. It is fine and even encouraged to add important controversial material, but with sources to back it up. Obviously it would be something like "Several important theologians, such as N.N, N.N., and N.N., have argued that Augustine wrote work of fiction." (all though i doubt you will find those people) Who says, for instance, that the doctrine of original sin is mighty flawed as you claimed in your edited? Since it isn't "mighty flawed" to many people, we don't write it, no matter how sure you are that it is. Best regards, --Fred chessplayer 21:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Utopian fiction"? For the most part, "City of God" is a theological work, like so many of the rest of his writings. The "two cities" are just a thematic element that flows through the work, a comparison of the "City of God" (the ideal, heavenly kingdom which will not be fully realized until the eschaton when Christ returns), and the "City of Man" (or the city of the devil, the sinful, imperfect state order we find the world in). So to call City of God "utopian fiction" is a gross distortion of the work and probably indicates that the person hasn't actually read it. Augustine is only regarded as an "authority" by the impact his writings had on Western thought, not because somehow a fiction book is being taken as actual history (far from it). Besides, his particular theology is echoed in all of his writings, not merely this one, though of course he develops it over time (as any theologian). But as others have pointed out, if you wish to articulate the view of some fringe scholar who makes such a claim about him, please put up the citations.

Edit: Perhaps the above poster is confusing this with the much better known (and much later) work, St. Thomas More's "Utopia"? Despite the title, "City of God" is not a fictional tale of the history of some non-existent ideal society.

Augustine quote - in French

"Avance sur ta route car elle n'existe que par ta marche"

Found this quote in French by St Augustine but can't source it or find standard English translation. Can anyone help?

Thomas (tomekcollin@hotmail.com)

 "Proceed on your route because it does not existe without your step."

The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Shouldn't The Literal Meaning of Genesis be discussed in the article?--Bcrowell 05:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Um no because that would be POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.187.45 (talk) 00:59, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

favor

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Augustine's quote on Judaism

I just have a comment on the the section dedicated to Augustine's passage on 'the Jews'. An anti-Semitic quote can be found for nearly every Ancient Christian Thinker; from the Apostles to Luther. It is certianly an unforunate legacy that we must deal with. My question is whether including this quote accurately represents Augustine, or if it merely discredits him. It is very unforunate that this was a part of his thinking, but I think including this with such promience distorts and ignores some of his more important contributions.

What do you all think? Andy 06:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

By the rules of wikipedia you cant keep it out, even if you remove it, someone else will re-add it later. But you can put it into historical context, to show that it was not specific to Augustine but of everyone in that time. I had to do this for Magna Carta, see the section "Magna Carta and the Jews" for an example of what i mean by putting it into historical context. --Stbalbach 16:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think that if there is a section on Augustine and Judaism, more mention needs to be made of Augustinian "witness doctrine," which has significant impact on the way that Jews are treated throughout Medieval Christendom. While Augustine takes a negative view of Judaism--as did all his Christian contemporaries--he constructs Jews and Judaism in such a manner that, in his mind, their survival is critical to Christianity. In Living Letters of the Law, Jeremy Cohen links Augustinian witness doctrine very closely to the fate of medieval Jews, arguing basically that thinkers who followed Augustine favored (relatively) acceptable conditions for Jews, and thinkers who moved further from his views favored worse conditions. While the negative aspects of Augustine's views of Judaism are (justly) noted here, the positive (relative to other classical / medieval thinkers) aspects are not. Makrina 06:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I found this misleading also, as the common doctrine of the ancients was that the Jews would be converted before the Eschaton (according to Revelation), and so any comments on Judaism are aimed at conversion, not anti-Semitism. Someone who knows more of this that I can edit the article and discuss it (perhaps doing so with other ancient authorities as well).

It should be born in mind that a VERY POPULAR quote attributed to Augustine is being circulated on the 'net (and appears in several polemical books against Christianity or popular works on anti-semitism in Christianity). It says something to the effect of "the Jews will never understand the scriptures and shall be forever cursed for the killing of the Lord" or something like that. It's usually included in a list of quotes attributed to various "church fathers" "saints" and "reformers" that are anti-Jewish. A citation is never given, only his name and life dates.

I have not read every single one of Augustine's works in their entirety, but quite a few in complete form and several parts of other works, and have never ran across this quote in their pages. I've gone to ccel.org and run a search on all of Augustine's works that are online (which is all of them except Retractations, which I own a print copy of) and the quote never appears.

I suspect that this quote (if it's real at all) comes from the collection of 70+ sermons that were falsely attributed to Augustine in the middle ages. That's right, a series of sermons were FORGED in his name in the middle ages (and recognized as fakes within a generation, but still popularly quoted for awhile, mainly by the Augustinian order apparently, in an attempt to establish links between themselves and the church father). As anti-semitism amongst Christians was rather popular in the late middle ages, it's quite possible the quote comes from these false sermons.

Augustine's thoughts on the Jews are certainly supercessionist (that is, viewing Catholicism as superior), but the popular quote is completely out of character for his views on Israel, and so should not be included in the article, unless it's part of a stub debunking the "false sermons."

St. Augustine on science

I recently came across an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS. In it Pope Leo XIII quotes St. Augustine several times regarding interpretation of scripture. One passage in particular I found interesting was this:

There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known."(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."(52)

This quote may be useful in the 'Influence as a theologian and thinker' section, but I don't want to make any edits based on one quote and little understanding of Augustine's philosphies. Others more familar with the his philosophy may find the encyclical a useful source as to his influences. --Albert White 15:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I found this LINK, that seems to be very relevant for the topic. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Augustine and creationism

The section of the article dealing with the interpretation of Genesis is fine, but the second paragraph is a little odd. That Augustine was a creationist goes without saying, but the use of that particular quote is misleading. Augustine is specifically responding, as he does throughout City of God, to the views of pagan philosophers. Remember that the book is written to merge western and semitic traditions while disproving pagan ones, especially the Roman Civic Religion and Stoicism. So, this section is a means of disproving cyclical history theories. Follow the link to see just how all the contemporary context.

My problem with this section is that it is totally irrelevant and attaches associations to this Doctor that do not necessarily exist. Many young-earth creationists would even reject his allegorical interpretation. Augustine is exculsively speaking about the creation of Adam to AD419 - the Biblical history of humans. This is akin to the current doctrine of the RCC, while the idea of young-earth creationism as a distinct movement is the result of the Protestant Reformation and sola scriptura literalism. He was just saying that Hesiod, and his ilk were wrong in disputing the Bible by using invented texts. It is possible that if he were presented evidence, he would allow for many more years (But this kind of speculation is as bad as what I'm complaining about.

I'll come back in a week to clean this up. Any comments?

Donbas 10:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Augustine does indeed at one point assert (to the effect of) "well everybody knows the world is not yet 6,000 years old" but never defends it (to my knowledge) with any authoritative scriptural exegesis. He's arguing with pagan historians who assert much longer time periods for certain portions of history. As he elsewhere argues against making rash assumptions about science by those who are unlearned in the areas of which they speak, which will embarrass the name of Christianity, I don't think he's an effective witness for Young Earth Creationists to use. It seems to me that Augustine merely accepted the mainstream view of his time, that the earth was young, and without any evidence to the contrary, took it as fact, without resorting to Scripture to try to establish it as divine revelation (as modern Creationists are wont to do).

Tolle lege

The section on the little girl petitioning him to "take up and read" implies that she directly told Augustine to read the Bible. I always thought that he merely over heard a girl stating to nobody in particular to "take up and read," as in study. Am I wrong? And another thing, must every article on a church father have the obligatory section on their possible anti-Semitism? Is it not so small in comparison to many other things the article does not even touch upon? Srnec 04:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed in the Confessions Augustine relates that he heard a child in a nearby home saying this, not that he actually encountered a child telling him to read. He interpreted this as a providential event, as he was meant to read that particular passage at that particular moment to inspire him to finally convert. The part about his alleged anti-semitism is because there is a very popular quote ALLEGEDLY by Augustine that sounds very anti-semitic. However, the quote doesn't appear in any of his actual writings, and is probably from one of the forged medieval sermons attributed to him. But most people haven't read Augustine, though they've probably seen the quote. Several other church fathers are accused, mainly because several popular works have been written recently that blame Christianity for the Holocaust, by establishing a "history of antisemitism." And because some writers undoubtably made such statements (Martin Luther for instance, himself once an Augustinian monk), people probably assume there's "more dirt to be found."

In the arts

The section called "In the arts," like all Wiki article sections that reference the popular culture of North America, has no value. Rock music "writers" have no knowledge of culture. Cinema script writers include names of intellectual writers in order to appear sophisticated. They merely use names for effect. They have never read or understood the named writers. I can't understand why Wikipedia lets such sections remain in the articles. Is it to pander to tenth-graders who buy the music and pay to see the movies?Lestrade 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Dualism

Would St. Augustine's beleifs in predestination and free will be considered dualist?

no that is not dualism Cor Unum 09:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination Suggested

Dear Friends: With some work on converting all the non-inline references to inline references, this article would meet or come close to the standards set for good article status. Please consider working on this and nominating it at: Wikipedia:Good article candidates. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) I fully agree, as well it is also by this statement, a philosophy, by the actual meaning of the words. So It therefore cannot be the words/thoughts of God.Again Simply The words of man again telling the thoughts of God, To which anyone may without fault, Tell what God Is now thinking, And with out fault One may dismiss all the previous thughts of said God, to be that of which they are,certain,the words of man.

Cultural depictions of Augustine of Hippo

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - [Doctrine of Original Sin] (Renamed from 'Augustine and predestination')

The section Doctrine of Original Sin is misleading and erroneous. It is ascribing Calvinism to Augustine (namely, that God predestines the reprobate to Hell), which is incorrect. The source of the quote (a book by Bertrand Russell, an agnostic and strong critic of religion) is furthermore highly unreliable. I have thoroughly corrected the section now based on the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia.

regards, lumendelumine ~Nov. 8 2006, 04:02 (UTC)~

Its much better. Thx. Lostcaesar 07:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is some of what the article currently says in the "doctrine of original sin" section:

"His idea of predestination rests on the assertion that God has foreseen, from time immemorial, all the choices every person who would ever live on Earth would make, and whether they would cooperate with Grace or not. The number of the people God knows would be saved are the elect, the number who God knows will not be saved are the reprobate. God has chosen the elect certainly and gratuitously, without any previous merit (ante merita) on their part. Yet Augustine also maintains firmly that it is God's will to save all men. God does not destroy human liberty and free choice, but preserves it, so that the elect would, potentially, have the full power to be damned and the non-elect full power to be saved. … Augustine's theory of predestination was misunderstood by both the Semipelagianists and John Calvin as teaching double predestination, ie. that God had already explicitly decided who would be saved and who would be damned and predestined them to this fate, in a way that does not leave room for free will, personal choice and cooperation with Grace."

The article seems to imply that Catholic Encyclopedia of 1914 (which has a paragraph-long block quote) interpretation is correct, and Calvin's interpretation is wrong. Did the Catholic Encyclopedians talk with Augustine's ghost and find out what he was really trying to say? Is there a reason that we can authoritatively say that "Augustine's theory of predestination was misunderstood by both the Semipelagianists and John Calvin as teaching double predestination"? Is there encyclopedically valid proof that that isn't what Augustine was really trying to say? Did Calvin read a bad translation?

I am not an expert on this subject, but the article basically calls Calvin's reading of the text a misinterpretation. Is there proof that this interpretation is incorrect? We can't get Augustine to give us a signed letter clarifying what he was trying to say. -Todemo

The Catholic Encyclopaedia quotation is accurate, but the content of the encyclopaedia itself seems questionable to me. I checked a couple the quotations (commentary on Psalms 73 and 102) against the Christian Classics Etheral Library, and could find neither. See, for example, this CCEL link: [3]. NigelCunningham 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Made an NPOV dispute for this section only. I would like to see us get a quotation from somewhere else other than the Catholic Encyclopaedia, since it appears (unless someone wants to correct me) to have fabricated the quotations (see previous comment). NigelCunningham 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that regardless of the fabrications that NigelCunningham points out, the Catholic Encycolpedia should not be used as source (not just on this page but on Wikipedia in general) as it is biased. If Bertrand Russell is an unacceptable reference because he "is an agnostic and strong critic of religion" (see lumendelumine's comment above) then it would be appropriate to characterise the publishers, benefactors, and contributors of the Catholic Encyclopedia as "strong advocates of a particular religious doctrine".

Would it not just make the most sense to include a quotation from Augustine to supplement the discussion of the Doctrine of Original Sin?

As Todemo points out, either a Calvinist or Catholic interpretation of Augstine's work is inevitably biased.

I realise that the preface to the Catholic Encyclopedia advocates that the encyclopedia strives for objectivity but upon examination of its content, this is clearly false. Case in point, its discussion of evolution (particularly the 'general conclusions' section). Read it here: [4]

So, I suggest that the Catholic Encylcopedia quote be removed altogther. Thoughts? (If no reasonable objections are provided I will remove it in a few days). BIsopp 05:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"either a Calvinist or Catholic interpretation of Augstine's work is inevitably biased" — I'm not so sure the two can be said as such. Augustine was Catholic, hence I would think a Catholic source to be a less objectionable one. Lostcaesar 11:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. In light of the long history of changes to the Catholic Church that came after Augustine (the 5 Lateran councils, various dispensations, etc.) it would seem that equating or directly connecting Augustine's Catholicism to modern Catholicism, or even the Catholicism in Calvin's time, is somewhat inappropriate. I reiterate Todemo's point: what gives the modern Catholic Church a monopoly on interpretation of events and documents from the formative and tumultuous period of early Christianity?

So, again, I propose that we merely replace the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia with one directly from Augustine's work. However, there would be nothing objectionable about creating a new section, titled "Interpretations of Augustine's Work", or something similar. This way we could include Catholic, Calvinist, Russell's, and any other noteworthy interpretations of Augustine.BIsopp 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we not call Augustine Christian either, then, since Christianity has gone through a "long history" also? I'm not saying that there is a monoply of interpretation, just that it seems reasonable that Augustine's teachings would be accurately presented in a Catholic encyclopedia, that's all. If we find a history book (there have been several recent biographies of St. Augustine) that says otherwise, then fine. But I don't think we need to be inherently sceptical of what a Catholic encyclopedia says about a Catholic theologian and Doctor of the Faith. Lostcaesar 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You will find that the religion called "Catholic Christianity" was the official religion of the Roman Empire and the religion to which Augustine converted. You could try to write it "catholic Christian" in the style of the Eastern churches. Even the WP article Catholic should help and the terminology sections of a few of the related and linked articles. DCDuring 23:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Augustine of Hippo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

needs citations plange 02:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Augustine did NOT "believe in Papal supremacy", as claimed in the article and "supported" by reference #3. A carefull reading of this reference will demonstrate that he linked the "True" Church to being in COMMUNION WITH Rome, rather than SUBJECT TO Rome. Also, a reading of "Optaremus", the letter sent by the African bishops to Rome, explicitly tells Rome that the Pope's juristiction does not extend the African provincial matters; he should not try to reach that far, lest the pride of worldly power come to infect the Church. These and other references such as the Enchiridion, if read in their own context instead of through the glasses of later ages, clearly show that Augustine held the Unity of the Church to consist in being what St. Paul describes as "A Body that builds itself up in Love", and not in being an organisation based on power, juristiction, supremacy or subordination. Indeed, it might cheekily be said that Augustine would judge that present-day Rome (and all other denominations that refuse to be in communion with other churches) thereby declare ithemselves schismatic! The Augustinian "True" church is the church that is in the broadest possible communion, which is the original meaning of the word "Catholic" ("Kat' holos" = "According to the Whole"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.142.2 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)