Augustine and Calvin, the Scriptures and the Church

[Pete_Holter]

(3 of 11)
A.D. 400: “Faustus has a proof to show that Paul changed his mind, and, in writing to the Corinthians, corrected what he had written to the Romans;… If the passage, he says, in the Epistle to the Romans is true,… what he says to the Corinthians cannot be true… We must therefore show that both these passages are true, and not opposed to one another. The agreement of the manuscripts proves both to be genuine… We must not for a moment suppose that Paul corrected himself on account of a change of opinion. Faustus himself felt the impropriety and impiety of such an explanation, and preferred to say that the passage was spurious, instead of that Paul was mistaken” (, Bk. 11, 4Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: ‘And if ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you’ (Philippians 3:15). Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, ***there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books ***has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist” (, Bk. 11, 5Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “With regard, then, to this apparent contradiction…, even though both quotations were not from the writings of one apostle,—though one were from Paul, and the other from Peter, or Isaiah, or any other apostle or prophet,—such is the equality of canonical authority, that it would not be allowable to doubt of either. For the utterances of Scripture, harmonious as if from the mouth of one man, commend themselves to the belief of the most accurate and clear-sighted piety, and demand for their discovery and confirmation the calmest intelligence and the most ingenious research… We cannot say [in this case] that the manuscript is faulty, for the best Latin translations substantially agree; or that the translations are wrong, for the best texts have the same reading. So that, if any one is perplexed by the apparent contradiction, the only conclusion is that he does not understand. Accordingly it remains for me to explain how both passages, instead of being contradictory, may be harmonized by one rule of sound faith. The pious inquirer will find all perplexity removed by a careful examination” (, Bk. 11, 6Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “Surely it is better and more reverential to examine the passages of sacred Scripture so as to discover their agreement with one another, than to accept some as true, and condemn others as false, whenever any difficulty occurs beyond the power of our weak intellect to solve” (, Bk. 11, 8Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “To enumerate all the passages in the Hebrew prophets referring to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, would exceed the limits of a volume, not to speak of the brief replies of which this treatise consists. The whole contents of these Scriptures are either directly or indirectly about Christ… In every page of these Scriptures, while I pursue my search as a son of Adam in the sweat of my brow, Christ either openly or covertly meets and refreshes me” (, Bk. 12, 7, 27Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “All that Moses wrote is of Christ, or relates to Christ, either as predicting Him by words and actions, or as illustrating His grace and glory… ‘I ask,’ he says, ‘for instruction in whatever the writings of Moses contain about our God and Lord, which has escaped me in reading.’ I reply at once that it has all escaped him, for all is written of Christ” (, Bk. 16, 9, 14Against Faustus).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(4 of 11)
A.D. 400: “What knowledge or belief can we have of Christ, but on the authority of Scripture?… How do you know that these were Christ’s words, but from the Gospel? … if you refuse to believe the Gospel, which is so generally known and received, you must fail utterly in the attempt to substitute for it any trustworthy record of the sayings and doings of Christ” (, Bk. 16, Sections 11, 12, 14Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “If it could be said of Moses that his words have a different meaning from what was in his mind, I would rather suppose him to have prophesied without knowing it, than allow that the words, ‘Thou shalt see thy life hanging, and shalt not believe thy life,’ are not applicable to Christ… But… he not only spoke of Christ, as he certainly did…, but he knew that he spoke of Christ… Moses no doubt knew in the spirit of prophecy, and from what he himself heard from God, that many heretics would arise to teach errors of all kinds against the doctrine of Christ, and to preach another Christ than the true Christ. For the true Christ is He that was foretold in the prophecies uttered by Moses himself, and by the other holy men of that nation. Moses accordingly commanded that whoever tried to teach another Christ should be put to death” (, Bk. 16, 23, 25Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “And even though from dullness of mind we could find nothing written of Christ by Moses, still, so strong is the evidence in support of the authority of the Gospel, that it would be incumbent on us to believe that not only some things, but everything written by Moses, refers to Christ; for He says not, ‘He wrote also of me,’ but, ‘He wrote of me.’ The truth then is this, that even though there were doubts, which God forbid, of the genuineness of this verse, the doubt would be removed by the number of testimonies to Christ which we find in Moses; while, on the other hand, even if we could find none, we should still be bound to believe that these are to be found, because no doubts can be admitted regarding any verse in the Gospel” (, Bk. 16, 26Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “The sacred record has an authority which raises it far above not merely the cavils of a handful of Manichæans, but the determined enmity of the whole Gentile world; for, in confirmation of its claims, we see that already it has brought nearly all people from their idolatrous superstitions to the worship of one God, according to the rule of Christianity. It has conquered the world, not by violence and warfare, but by the resistless force of truth” (, Bk. 22, 60Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “Under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the prophet has compiled a narrative of actions so as to make a continuous prophecy of the things he designed to foretell” (, Bk. 22, 83Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “All those passages speak of Christ. The head now ascended into heaven along with the body still suffering on earth is the full development of the whole purpose of the authors of Scripture, which is well called Sacred Scripture. Every part of the narrative in the prophetical books should be viewed as having a figurative meaning, except what serves merely as a framework for the literal or figurative predictions of this king and of his people. For as in harps and other musical instruments the musical sound does not come from all parts of the instrument, but from the strings, and the rest is only for fastening and stretching the strings so as to tune them, that when they are struck by the musician they may give a pleasant sound; so in these prophetical narratives the circumstances selected by the prophetic spirit either predict some future event, or if they have no voice of their own, they serve to connect together other significant utterances. Should the heretics reject our exposition of those allegorical narratives, or even insist on understanding them only in a literal sense, to dispute about such a difference of understanding would be as useless as to dispute about a difference of taste. Only, the fact that the divine precepts have either a moral and religious character or a prophetic meaning must be believed, whether intelligently or not. Moreover, the figurative interpretations must all be in the interest of morality and religion… And even those passages in Scripture which contain no examples or warnings are either required for connection, so as to pass on to essential matters, or, from their very appearance of superfluity, indicate the presence of some secret symbolical meaning. For in the books we speak of, so far from there being a want or a scarcity of prophetical announcements, such announcements are numerous and distinct; and now that the fulfillment has actually taken place, the testimony thus borne to the divine authority of the books is irresistibly strong, so that it is mere madness to suppose that there can be any useless or unmeaning passages in books to which all classes of men and of minds do homage, and which themselves predict what we see thus actually coming to pass” (, Bk. 22, 94, 95, 96Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “It is enough for us that the enemies of these Scriptures, which record these truths and which we believe, cannot prove against them any charge of falsehood” (, Bk. 23, 9Against Faustus).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(5 of 11)
A.D. 400: “As to Enoch and Elias and Moses, our belief is determined …] by the declarations of Scripture, resting as they do on foundations of the strongest and surest evidence. …] [W]e can have no reason for doubting what on the high authority of Scripture is related of [Elias], unless we limit the power of God to things which we are familiar with. …] To give you in a word, without argument, the true reason of our faith, as regards Elias having been caught up to heaven from the earth, though only a man, and as regards Christ being truly born of a virgin, and truly dying on the cross, our belief in both cases is grounded on the declaration of Holy Scripture, which it is piety to believe, and impiety to disbelieve. …] The reason of our believing Him to have been born of the Virgin Mary, is not that He could not otherwise have appeared among men in a true body, but because it is so written in the Scripture, which we must believe in order to be Christians, or to be saved. We believe, then, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, because it is so written in the Gospel; we believe that He died on the cross, because it is so written in the Gospel; we believe that both His birth and death were real, because the Gospel is no fiction. …] But this may be confidently affirmed, that what took place was exactly as we are told in the Gospel narrative …]. We place the authority of the Gospel above all heretical discussions; and we admire the counsel of divine wisdom more than any counsel of any creature. …] The things are true; and the accurate narrative of them is intended to instruct whoever believes in Christ’s gospel in the truth, not to delude him with falsehoods” (, Bk. 26, 3, 5, 7-8Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “ ‘But,’ says Faustus, ‘I prove from the writings themselves that they cannot be in all points trustworthy, for they contradict one another.’ Why not say, then, that they are wholly untrustworthy, if their testimony is inconsistent and self-contradictory? …] ‘No one,’ says Faustus, ‘believes writings which contradict themselves.’ But if you think they do this, it is because you do not understand them; for your ignorance has been manifested in regard to the passages you have quoted in support of your opinion, and the same will appear in regard to any quotations you may still make. So there is no reason for our not believing these writings, supported as they are by such weighty testimony; and this is itself the best reason for pronouncing accursed those whose preaching differs from what is there written” (, Bk. 28, 5Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “Perhaps Faustus was unwilling to make the birth an illusion, because the difference of the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke causes an apparent discrepancy. But, supposing a man ignorant, there are many things also relating to the passion of Christ in which he will think the evangelists disagree; suppose him instructed, he finds entire agreement” (, Bk. 29, 3Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “Hence there is no force in the analogy which Faustus institutes between Christ’s pointing out to us what to believe and what to reject in the Old Testament, in which He Himself is predicted, and the Paraclete’s doing the same to you as regards the New Testament, where there is a similar prediction of Him. There might have been some plausibility in this, had there been anything in the Old Testament which we denounced as a mistake, or as not of divine authority, or as untrue. We do nothing of the kind; we receive everything” (, Bk. 32, 15Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “But what can you say to prove that the publication of [the New Testament] cannot be traced to the apostles? You reply that in many things they contradict themselves and one another. Nothing could be more untrue; the fact is, you do not understand. In every case where Faustus has brought forward what you think a discrepancy, we have shown that there was none; and we will do the same in every other case. It is intolerable that the reader or learner should dare to lay the blame on Scriptures of such high authority, instead of confessing his own stupidity” (, Bk. 32, 16Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “Faustus finds contradictions in the Gospels. Say, rather, that Faustus reads the Gospels in a wrong spirit, that he is too foolish to understand, and too blind to see. If you were animated with piety instead of being misled by party spirit, you might easily, by examining these passages, discover a wonderful and most instructive harmony among the writers. Who, in reading two narratives of the same event, would think of charging one or both of the authors with error or falsehood, because one omits what the other mentions, or one tells concisely, but with substantial agreement, what the other relates in detail, so as to indicate not only what was done, but also how it was done? This is what Faustus does in his attempt to impeach the truth of the Gospels; as if Luke’s omitting some saying of Christ recorded in Matthew implied a denial on the part of Luke of Matthew’s statement. There is no real difficulty in the case; and to make a difficulty shows want of thought, or of the ability to think… Are we, then, in reading to forget the common usage of speech? Or must the sacred Scripture have a language of its own? The cavils of froward critics are thus met by a reference to the usual forms of speech” (, Bk. 33, 7Against Faustus).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(6 of 11)
A.D. 400: “I wish one of those people who found their silly objections to the Gospels on such trifling difficulties would himself tell a story twice over, honestly giving a true account of what happened, and that his words were written down and read over to him. We should then see whether he would not say more or less at one time than at another; and whether the order would not be changed, not only of words, but of things; and whether he would not put some opinion of his own into the mouth of another, because, though he never heard him say it, he knew it perfectly well to be in his mind; and whether he would not sometimes put in a few words what he had before related at length. In these and other ways, which might perhaps be reduced to rule, the narratives of the same thing by two persons, or two narratives by the same person, might differ in many things without being opposed, might be unlike without being contradictory” (, Bk. 33, 8Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “[W]ho can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 3On Baptism, Against the Donatists).

A.D. 400: “If you do not consider that I have now written enough in answer to your questions, you must have little knowledge of my capacities or of my engagements. For so far am I from being, as you have thought, acquainted with everything, that I read nothing in your letter with more sadness than this statement, both because it is most manifestly untrue, and because I am surprised that you should not be aware, that not only are many things unknown to me in countless other departments, but that even in the Scriptures themselves the things which I do not know are many more than the things which I know” (Letter 55, Ch. 21.38).

A.D. 400-428: “Holy Scripture… suits itself to babes” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 1.2On the Holy Trinity).

A.D. 401: “For if there shall be alleged any plain statement from the divine books, whereby to refute their errors, this they have at hand as a shield, whereby defending themselves as it were against the truth, they lay themselves bare to be wounded by the devil: to say that the author of the book did not speak the truth in this instance, at one time in order to spare the weak, at another in order to alarm despisers: just as a case shall come to hand, wherein to defend their own perverse opinion: and thus, whilst they had rather defend than amend their own opinions, they essay to break the authority of holy Scripture, whereby alone all proud and hard necks are broken. …] In the first place, therefore, and chiefly, let such as choose the good of virginity, hold most firmly that the holy Scriptures have in nothing spoken lies… Is it not now a milder charge, to charge Susanna, not with marriage, but with adultery itself, than to charge the doctrine of the Apostle with falsehood? What in so great peril could we do, were it not as sure and plain that chaste marriage ought not to be condemned, as it is sure and plain that holy Scripture cannot lie?” (, 17, 18, 20Of Holy Virginity).

A.D. 401-416: “Whatever [scientists] can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures” (, Bk. 1, 21:41On the Literal Meaning of Genesis).

A.D. 401-416: “It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial. What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side? But the credibility of Scripture is at stake, and as I have indicated more than once, there is danger that a man uninstructed in divine revelation, discovering something in Scripture or hearing from it something that seems to be at variance with the knowledge he has acquired, may resolutely withhold his assent in other matters where Scripture presents useful admonitions, narratives, or declarations. Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation” (, Bk. 2, 9:20On the Literal Meaning of Genesis).

A.D. 401-416: “If it is necessary – and it is necessary – to understand these two statements [of Scripture] so as to find both consistent and not conflicting with each other, it is also equally necessary that both of them be not in contradiction with the demonstrations [of science]” (, Bk. 2, 9:21On the Literal Meaning of Genesis).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(7 of 11)
A.D. 401-416: “About these rivers (cf. Genesis 2:10-14), why should I bother any more to establish that they are real rivers, not just metaphors, as though they did not exist but only the names signified something, seeing that they are obviously known in the regions they flow through, and indeed their fame has spread abroad to practically all peoples? On the contrary, since it is agreed that they certainly exist, two of them, though, have had their names changed since antiquity, just as the river now called the Tiber was earlier known as the Albula. Gihon, that is to say, is the one now called the Nile, while the one that used to be called Pishon is the one they now call the Ganges. The two others, the Tigris and Euphrates, have kept their ancient names; we should let ourselves be advised to take all the rest to begin with according to the strict literal sense and not to assume that it is being talked about figuratively, but that the things and events which are being related both exist and also stand figuratively for something else.

“This is not because the parable mode of speech could not take something from real life which without question is not being mentioned in any proper historical sense; take the way the Lord speaks, for instance, about the man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves. Is there anybody who would not perceive straightaway that this is obviously a parable, and that the whole story has a figurative meaning? And yet there are two cities named in it, which can be shown you to this very day in their own place. But that is the way in which we would take these four rivers too, if any necessity obliged us to take the other things that are told about Paradise only in a figurative and not a proper sense. Now however, since there is no reason preventing us from taking these things first of all in a proper, literal sense, why should we not simply follow the authority of scripture in its narrative of things done, and first accept that the things really were done, and then only after that investigate what else they signify?” (, Bk. 8, Ch. 7.13On Genesis**On the Literal Meaning of Genesis)

A.D. 405: “For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it …] I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error” (, 1, 3Letter 82).

A.D. 405: “It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place” (, 3, 24Letter 82).

A.D. 410-412: “In fact, an individual Evangelist may make certain statements which the other three do not make; two Evangelists sometimes relate things which the other two do not mention; or three of the Evangelists tell something which the fourth omits. Nevertheless, because the one Spirit spoke through the Evangelists, the authority of the holy Gospel is so great that even what only one writer gives is true” (Sermon 235).

A.D. 412: “For if reason be found contradicting the authority of Divine Scriptures, it only deceives by a semblance of truth, however acute it be, for its deductions cannot in that case be true. On the other hand, if, against the most manifest and reliable testimony of reason, anything be set up claiming to have the authority of the Holy Scriptures, he who does this does it through a misapprehension of what he has read, and is setting up against the truth not the real meaning of Scripture, which he has failed to discover, but an opinion of his own; he alleges not what he has found in the Scriptures, but what he has found in himself as their interpreter” (Letter 143).

A.D. 412: “Let us therefore give in and yield our assent to the authority of Holy Scripture, which knows not how either to be deceived or to deceive; …] Holy Scripture… is to be preferred to all human authority and opinion” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 22:33On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(8 of 11)
A.D. 412: “The discussion, however, so far as I can judge, ought to be conducted with temper and moderation, so as to deserve the praise of cautious inquiry, rather than the censure of headstrong assertion. For whenever a question arises on an unusually obscure subject, on which no assistance can be rendered by clear and certain proofs of the Holy Scriptures, the presumption of man ought to restrain itself; nor should it attempt anything definite by leaning to either side. But if I must indeed be ignorant concerning any points of this sort, as to how they can be explained and proved, this much I should still believe, that from this very circumstance the Holy Scriptures would possess a most clear authority, whenever a point arose which no man could be ignorant of, without imperilling the salvation which has been promised him” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 36:59On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants).

A.D. 413-426: “We need not at present give a careful and copious exposition of the doctrine of Scripture, the sum of Christian knowledge” (, Bk. 9, Ch. 5The City of God).

A.D. 413-426: “I would ask, what more remarkable history can be found than that which has taken possession of the whole world by its authoritative voice? Or what more trustworthy than that which narrates past events, and predicts the future with equal clearness, and in the unfulfilled predictions of which we are constrained to believe by those that are already fulfilled? For neither Porphyry nor any Platonists can despise divination and prediction, even of things that pertain to this life and earthly matters, though they justly despise ordinary soothsaying and the divination that is connected with magical arts. They deny that these are the predictions of great men, or are to be considered important, and they are right; for they are founded, either on the foresight of subsidiary causes, as to a professional eye much of the course of a disease is foreseen by certain pre-monitory symptoms, or the unclean demons predict what they have resolved to do, that they may thus work upon the thoughts and desires of the wicked with an appearance of authority, and incline human frailty to imitate their impure actions. It is not such things [as are predictable] that the saints who walk in the universal way care to predict as important, although, for the purpose of commending the faith, they knew and often predicted even such things as could not be detected by human observation, nor be readily verified by experience. But there were other truly important and divine events which they predicted, in so far as it was given them to know the will of God. For the incarnation of Christ, and all those important marvels that were accomplished in Him, and done in His name; the repentance of men and the conversion of their wills to God; the remission of sins, the grace of righteousness, the faith of the pious, and the multitudes in all parts of the world who believe in the true divinity; the overthrow of idolatry and demon worship, and the testing of the faithful by trials; the purification of those who persevered, and their deliverance from all evil; the day of judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the eternal condemnation of the community of the ungodly, and the eternal kingdom of the most glorious city of God, ever-blessed in the enjoyment of the vision of God—these things were predicted and promised in the Scriptures of this way; and of these we see so many fulfilled, that we justly and piously trust that the rest will also come to pass. As for those who do not believe, and consequently do not understand, that this is the way which leads straight to the vision of God and to eternal fellowship with Him, according to the true predictions and statements of the Holy Scriptures, they may storm at our position, but they cannot storm it” (, Bk. 10, Ch. 32The City of God).

A.D. 413-426: “ome allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself… These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offense to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts” (, Bk. 13, Ch. 21The City of God).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(9 of 11)
A.D. 413-426: “Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church… But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed” (, Bk. 15, Ch. 27The City of God).

A.D. 413-426: “From the blessing of the two sons of Noah, and the cursing of the middle son, down to Abraham, or for more than a thousand years, there is, as I have said, no mention of any righteous persons who worshipped God. I do not therefore conclude that there were none; but it had been tedious to mention every one, and would have displayed historical accuracy rather than prophetic foresight. The object of the writer of these sacred books, or rather of the Spirit of God in him, is not only to record the past, but to depict the future, so far as it regards the city of God; for whatever is said of those who are not its citizens, is given either for her instruction, or as a foil to enhance her glory. Yet we are not to suppose that all that is recorded has some signification; but those things which have no signification of their own are interwoven for the sake of the things which are significant. It is only the ploughshare that cleaves the soil; but to effect this, other parts of the plough are requisite. It is only the strings in harps and other musical instruments which produce melodious sounds; but that they may do so, there are other parts of the instrument which are not indeed struck by those who sing, but are connected with the strings which are struck, and produce musical notes. So in this prophetic history some things are narrated which have no significance, but are, as it were, the framework to which the significant things are attached” (, Bk. 16, Ch. 2The City of God).

A.D. 413-426: “But just as, I think, they err greatly who are of opinion that none of the records of affairs in that kind of writings mean anything more than that they so happened, so I think those very daring who contend that the whole gist of their contents lies in allegorical significations. Therefore I have said [that prophetic utterances] are threefold, not two-fold. Yet, in holding this opinion, I do not blame those who may be able to draw out of everything there a spiritual meaning, only saving, first of all, the historical truth. For the rest, what believer can doubt that those things are spoken vainly which are such that, whether said to have been done or to be yet to come, they do not beseem either human or divine affairs? Who would not recall these to spiritual understanding if he could, or confess that they should be recalled by him who is able?” (, Bk. 17, Ch. 3The City of God)

A.D. 415: “Oh how I wish that he were never willing to add, I will not say anything but what he reads in the Scriptures, but in opposition to what he reads in them; that he would only faithfully and obediently hear that which is written there” (, Ch. 39:46On Nature and Grace).

A.D. 415: “[Coelestius’] affected answer to this passage amounts to nothing else than the showing how texts of Holy Scripture seem to clash with one another, whereas it is our duty rather to demonstrate their agreement” (, Ch. 17.38On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness).

A.D. 417: “[T]hey would know nothing of Christ Himself save what is revealed in the Scriptures” (Letter 185, Ch. 1:2; a.k.a., On the Correction of the Donatists).

A.D. 418: “Let these persons read the Gospel; let them consider how that the Lord Jesus was at that moment within, having a hearing before the chief of the priests; while the Apostle Peter was outside (cf. Matthew 26:69, 71), and down in the hall (cf. Mark 14:6), sitting at one time with the servants at the fire (cf. Luke 22:55), at another time standing (cf. John 18:1), as the most accurate and consistent narrative of the evangelists shows” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 49On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin).

A.D. 419: “Yes, indeed, I will learn, if the apostle teaches; since it is God alone who teaches by the apostle” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 26On the Soul and its Origin).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(10 of 11)
A.D. 419: “Who, in short, would believe it possible, if one who errs not had not told us, that ‘we know not what we should pray for as we ought?’ (Romans 8:26)” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 12On the Soul and its Origin).

A.D. 419: “Belonging to this class of similitudes of corporeity, which are not real bodies, though they seem to be such, are all those appearances which you read of in the Holy Scriptures in the visions even of the prophets, without, however, understanding them; by which are also signified the things which come to pass in all time — present, past, and future. You make mistakes about these, not because they are in themselves deceptive, but because you do not accept them as they ought to be taken” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 34On the Soul and its Origin).

A.D. 419-420: “Though we should rather laugh at him than be angry with him, who is going to tolerate this fellow when he tells us that ‘the hours mark the day, but the sun distinguishes and separates the hours’ and wants us to believe ‘that Moses did not know this and, hence, mentioned the day before the sun was made’? Let the people assemble to hear this fellow’s book, and let it be proposed to them which is more believable: that this fellow does not know a light and a day that Moses knew or that Moses did not know this light and day that not only this fellow, but even those who do not understand his words know” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 12.16Answer to an Enemy of the Law and the Prophets).

A.D. 419-420: “I am not surprised that an uneducated man thinks that the apostle spoke of the prophets of the Jews, when he said, ‘One of their own, a prophet, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true’ (Titus 1:12-13). He is unaware that this was said by a certain Epimenides, who was a Cretan and in whose books this is found. This man is not counted among the prophets of God, not does this saying belong to the words of God which God, who does not lie, entrusted to the Jews. For this reason, the apostle does not mention his name, as he usually refers to the prophets of God, saying at times, ‘As David said’ (Romans 4:6), ‘But Isaiah dared to say’ (Romans 10:20), ‘As Hosea says’ (Romans 9:25), or, without mentioning their names, saying, ‘As scripture says’ (Romans 1:17). And he means that scripture in which is found the authority of God. At other times, he clearly states that God is speaking, when he uses a proof from the law or the prophets of God, such as, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox as it treads the grain. Is God concerned about cattle?’ he asks. ‘Or does scripture say this for our sake?’ (1 Corinthians 9:9-10). Thus he shows in the same scripture that it is God speaking. Or as another example, ‘Foreseeing that God justifies the Gentiles by faith, scripture foretold this to Abraham, when he said, In your offspring all nations will be blessed (Galatians 3:8). He said ‘scripture’ instead of ‘God,’ because it is God’s scripture. Concerning Abraham he says, ‘At the promise of God he did not hesitate with unbelief, but he was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God and wholeheartedly believing that he is able to bring about what he promised’ (Romans 4:20-21). Against this statement of God and the apostle, this mad dog dared to bark and say, ‘Abraham did not believe his God when he promised offspring to him.’ This fellow did not understand that Abraham’s words, ‘Shall a son be born to me who am one hundred years old? (Genesis 17:17), expressed joyful wonder, not a doubting disbelief. As still another example, ‘The word of God cannot fail. For not all who were from Israel belonged to Israel, nor are all sons, because they are the offspring of Abraham. Rather, in Isaac will your offspring be counted. That is, it is not the sons according to the flesh who are sons of God, but the sons of the promise will be reckoned as the offspring’ (Romans 9:6-7). Or, take the passage concerning Elijah, ‘What does God’s response to him say? There remain for me seven thousand men who have not knelt before Baal’ (Romans 11:4). By this and similar testimonies, the authority of the apostle affirms that those scriptures which this fellow blasphemes are from the true and good God. But where the apostle says something about the authors of the Gentiles, he does not call them prophets of God, nor does he say that God is the author of their writings, although he finds in them some true statements” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 12.16Answer to an Enemy of the Law and the Prophets).

A.D. 420: “Let the apostle, too, be His assessor in the judgment; since even in the apostle it is Christ Himself that speaks” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 56On Marriage and Concupiscence).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(11 of 11)
A.D. 426: “For where I understand these writers, it seems to me not only that nothing can be wiser, but also that nothing can be more eloquent. And I venture to affirm that all who truly understand what these writers say, perceive at the same time that it could not have been properly said in any other way. …] Nor was it composed by man’s art and care, but it flowed forth in wisdom and eloquence from the Divine mind; wisdom not aiming at eloquence, yet eloquence not shrinking from wisdom” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 6:9, 7:21On Christian Doctrine).

A.D. 426: “And if a man in searching the Scriptures endeavors to get at the intention of the author through whom the Holy Spirit spoke, whether he succeeds in this endeavor, or whether he draws a different meaning from the words, but one that is not opposed to sound doctrine, he is free from blame so long as he is supported by the testimony of some other passage of Scripture. For the author perhaps saw that this very meaning lay in the words which we are trying to interpret; and assuredly the Holy Spirit, who through him spoke these words, foresaw that this interpretation would occur to the reader, nay, made provision that it should occur to him, seeing that it too is founded on truth. For what more liberal and more fruitful provision could God have made in regard to the Sacred Scriptures than that the same words might be understood in several senses, all of which are sanctioned by the concurring testimony of other passages equally divine?” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 27:38On Christian Doctrine)

A.D. 427-428: “We should be delighted if what is stated obscurely in the holy scriptures to exercise the minds of the faithful is explained in many ways, provided it is not done foolishly” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 22.3Answer to Maximinus the Arian).

A.D. 427-428: “You ask me whether I urge you ‘to profess one God the way the Jews do’ or whether ‘from the subjection of the Son,’ I will show, ‘as the Christian faith holds, that there is one God whose Son is our God.’ You say this as if ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord is your God, the Lord is one,’ or ‘I am the Lord, and there is no other besides me’ were the words of the Jews. God Himself said this; acknowledge that and be silent, or rather explain how he spoke the truth, for neither of us dares to say he has lied” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 23.2Answer to Maximinus the Arian).

A.D. 430: “It is said through a human being to a human being, but not by a human being, ‘Who are you, a human being, to answer back to God? Does the clay pot say to the one who formed it , Why did you make me so? Or does the potter not have the power to make out of the same lump of clay one vessel for an honorable purpose and another for a dishonorable purpose?’ (Rom 9:20-21)” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 135Unfinished Work Against Julian).

Is it possible to faithfully express our doctrine of Scripture more fully and more beneficially than this!?

Oh God, how I need you!
Pete

“You should not write [the Creed] out in any way, but, so as to hold the exact words of the Creed, learn it by listening. Not even when you have learned it should you write it down, but, rather, always hold it and cherish it in your memory. For whatever you will hear in the Creed is contained in the inspired books of the holy Scriptures” (Sermon 212, 2).