Talk:Augustine of Hippo/Archive 2

Sections on Augustine's thought needing work
This provides a capsule introduction, but it's certainly not above the level of what a college student should know about Augustine. Also, the organization of the article could be improved - the links between Augustine's doctrines of original sin and concupiscence (lust, essentially) should be brought out more (and sources used besides Bertrand Russell); the main thought section seems like a grab bag, and is partly redundant with later sections. Finally, the ways in which his thought was appropriated by later opposing traditions, such as the Thomistic and Calvinistic readings (not to mention Bernard of Clairvaux) deserve a section.

Still, the article is better than the last time I worked on it. My compliments to those who've been working to bring it to this point. Evan Donovan 04:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the concept of lust presented in a correct matter? I don't believe that one would be able to conclude that augustine thought that his sexual acts were acceptable, but rather the worse end of his actions were the lustfull thoughts. Thus, one could not say that augstine believed the sexual acts were not inherently wrong.

Monica and catholicism
This is in regard to this footnote added to Monica's catholic religion which reads:
 * Monica would have called herself a catholic. However the word catholic is not being used in the modern sense of Roman Catholic (capital 'C') versus Eastern Orthodox, but rather in the older sense of a follower of the Nicene Creed, in that she was not a Donatist or Arian, a significant distinction for the time.

Lostcaesar, sorry for my edit note about "extensive discussion", the discussion actually happened off-page, in user talk pages, and it wasn't as extensive as I remembered it :)

Basically the problem is this: some editors want to remove the mention of "catholic" and use "Christian" instead, seeing as how this is a period before the Eastern and Western Churches had split, and the use of the word Catholic carries a lot of connotations that shouldn't be pushed that far back.. an anachronism. So an edit note is needed to clarify why catholic is being used, and which version of the word catholic is being used (lower-case). It was a compromise solution since some editors get confused about what is meant by "catholic" vs Catholic and the history of the church. I'll wait to hear your concern before changing back. -- Stbalbach 18:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Augustine described himself as a Catholic, and his mother as one too. I don't see what the difficulty is.  "Catholic" is a term employed meaningfully in a fourth century context, and likewise it has a meaning beyond just contrasting Greek Orthodoxy, or Arianism &c.  Neither is it really that different than it is used today, in fact its probably less anachronistic than using the term Christian, if we follow the same sense of schism and doctrinal development.  Personally, this little note seems a bit like editorializing, and that's why it should just go.  It seemed like editorializing when it was added, but I decided to let is slide, figuring that it was probably being advanced with someone who had strong personal convictions that were better left alone for a while.   The reformers wanted to claim Augustine as a proto-protestant, and sort of anachronism hasn't died yet in some circles.  Lostcaesar 18:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm actually that is incorrect. Catholic (could) mean something different then, then it does today. Back then, there had not yet been a split between eastern Orthodox and western Roman Catholicism. So today when you use the term "Catholic", it generally means "Roman Catholic", which would be incorrect when referring to Monica. As for "editorializing" - can you explain what you mean? Editorializing suggests there is some sort of "opinion" being expressed. There is no opinion, it is simply a clarification of the word, which has changed meaning between then and now. This whole problem started when various multiple editors tried to change "Catholic" to something else, because they (rightly) thought that it was confusing to suggest she was Roman Catholic before Roman Catholic even existed. -- Stbalbach 14:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are overemphasizing the effect of the schism. There were various splits in antiquity between the Greek and Latin elements of the Church, resulting in continual reconciliation until the Middle Ages.  There was always a Latin dimension of the Church, to which Monica belonged unquestionably.  So I don't see the direct relevance of the schism.  There were later schisms in the Latin Church also (such as the Reformation), but we wouldn't shy from calling Monica a Christian, even though the later splits in Christianity were doctrinal, whilst the Great Schism was not doctrinal, as both Greek and Latin authorities assert today.  The editorializing is, frankly, the assertion that the Catholic Church did not exist in antiquity, acting as if the Catholic Church today is a different Church, not continuously existing historically since antiquity.  Lostcaesar 22:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, please remove anything that says "The Catholic Church did not exist in antiquity". To your first point, keep in mind that we are dealing with the general reader (and editor) who may not have the nuanced understanding you do about the many vicissitudes of "catholicism" though history, and only understand it from the widely known version that we know today - thus the note for clarification. If this was not the case, we would not have an article called catholic which discusses "Catholic" versus "catholic", not would we have had the previous editorial disputes (with other editors) about using "Catholic", "catholic" or "Christian". It is a confusing topic for a lot of people and needs to be clarified. -- Stbalbach 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But its the nature of the clarification that I have a problem with:
 * Monica would have called herself a catholic. However the word catholic is not being used in the modern sense of Roman Catholic (capital 'C') versus Eastern Orthodox, but rather in the older sense of a follower of the Nicene Creed, in that she was not a Donatist or Arian, a significant distinction for the time.
 * The problem is that this implies that the modern sense of Catholic with a cap "C" it describing a different institution than the one Monica belonged to. That the Catholic Church is more developed today than in antiquity seems simple enough &mdash; the same could be said for Christianity in general &mdash; but its the same Church.  You seem to say that, calling St. Monica a "Catholic" implies something false, but I don't see what that falsehood is.  She was a Latin Catholic Christian.  If someone reads that and thinks "Roman Catholic", they would be right.  The adjective "Roman" only came to be applied to the term "Catholic" after the Reformation, not the Great Schism, and was used by Latin Christians who had broken from the Church to represent their own new ecclesiology.  If we had to apply a modern label to Monica, and we insisted on using post-Reformation terms (rather than post schism, wherefore the adj. "Latin" would be more apt) it would be Roman Catholic; there is, of course, no reason to do this &mdash; "Catholic" will suffice &mdash; but the risk of confusing this with "Roman Catholic" is inconsequential since, in modern terminology, they represent the same thing (lest we impose Reformation ecclesiology on the fourth century!). Lostcaesar 15:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * hmm I wrote a long reply to this yesterday but got lost in a computer crash. Anyway, I think we need to leave a note for future editors since it's been twice someone has changed it from Catholic to Christian, well meaning, but mis-informed. -- Stbalbach 16:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I agree that distinctions need to be made: "catholic" was not used in the same sense as it is today, at all, period: in fact, the idea that the term means "universal" is ignorant, or wholly misguided, though that is one of the early Christian uses of it: which I use to illustrate that yes, it did have different meanings; but at the time its meaning was prior to the "Catholic" as a term, or even a church, as it is today, far prior to the ecclesiastical and hierarchical system as it is today, and much different in constitution, dogmas, and even many beliefs. The history is quite interesting, actually, but quite long too. Anyways, I'd support changing the term for the readers, or providing an explanation. The attempts to preserve it seem more to do with defensiveness than rationality. "Christian" does more than enough to convey all the meaning required, while not implying the thousand+ years of changes and developments in the Catholic Church which the word now connotes. Those saying that people won't understand it are right: it's rare that I find anyone that does know the differences and distinctions. Cheers. : ) Infinitelink 09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To add to what others have said, Augustine, repeatedly, in his works uses the term "Catholic" to refer to the one true, apostolic Church founded by Christ, in contrast to "heretics and schismatics" such as the Arians, Donatists and Manichees. If wiki thinks that readers will be confused or offended, just put up a footnote explaining it. He was not using the term only in the sense of "Christian" since these other folks also claimed to be Christian (and the Donatists claimed to be the one true Church rather than the Catholics). We don't have Monica's writings, but we do have Augustine's statements about her and what she allegedly said (see the Confessions "On the Death of Monica" and other chapters).

Baptization and education
The article stated that Saint Augustine was "educated and baptized in Rome." According to Gary Wills' introduction to his translation of Confessions, Saint Augustine was baptized in Milan. Thus, I've changed it. Can anyone confirm that he was educated in Rome? Ejectgoose 07:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He was educated in Rome, and your right he was Baptized in Milan, that was probably my mistake a long time ago (not sure where that came from, might have been leftover from the EB1911 text). -- Stbalbach 18:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember that Augustine was twice baptized, who knows the correct sources for this info?Infinitelink 09:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt it, since one of his arguments against the Donatists was that they insisted on re-baptising Christians who converted to their sect. Jhobson1 18:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Augustine was ALMOST baptized in his youth. The process was begun, because he was ill (at the time it was common to baptize a person who was in danger of death) but recovered and it was abandoned. This is mentioned early in the Confessions, if I'm not mistaken. So he was only officially baptized in adulthood.

Ethnicity
I know he was born in Africa and educated in Europe. And based on pictures I assume he was of European descent, but do we know this? What was his ethincity? How long had his family been in Africa?--Just nigel 11:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean, by your question, "what was his race"? North Africa wasn't as it is now, as far as I know, but it would have been quite mixed: Alexandria, for instance, was founded by Alexander (Greek) and, well, much of that area was quite mixed: so much of the place wasn't actually quite "European" in descent, but rather "Roman" as in the empire which swelled-over and engulfed the Mediterranean Region: not Roman in the sense of "Italians from the city of Rome", but rather that expansive empire, which facilitated movement, which was highly-influenced by the Hellenistic-Greek kind of culture, (since it had absorbed it). I don't think the ethnicity matters, though. I'd guess there might be evidence existing to your question, though. Infinitelink 09:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's very likely that he was black. There were some racial prejudices against African blacks in Rome that could have been the impetus for portraying him with light skin (see pg 41 and 105 of 'Thompson, Lloyd A. Romans and Blacks. Norman: Oklahoma UP, 1989'). It's very likely, for instance, that Saints Perpetuas and Felicitas were ethnically altered towards the more desirable Roman skin tone. There are, of course, historians who disagree. I don't actually know much about St. Augustine in particular, but if anyone has a little free time, a little research might be worth it!--Heyitspeter 16:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Augustine was North African, so he probably looked like people from Egypt (of course these even today are "mixed" racially). He was probably darker skinned than a Swede, but not as dark as someone from Nigeria, but we don't really know. Race was simply not as much an issue for people in his time as it is today (though you do have some examples in later periods of people who stood out for their dark skin being called "the black" or "the ethiopian"). Augustine may have lived amongst people with similar complexion and thus it was not thought to be important. Interestingly, artwork of his mother often depicts her with dark skin, but Augustine himself with lily white skin. These are not contemporary portraits of course. But if they were, one might surmise that his mother was dark skinned and his father lighter skinned, and thus he was what today we'd call "biracial." But that's complete speculation, and has no place on wikipedia!

He was a Berber. He was born in a city that was (and is) a center of Berber culture, his mother Monica has a Berber name. Those are my two cents. Ahassan05 (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)ahassan05

Pronunciation
Had it been accented on the penultimate in Latin, it would have been AU-gus-TI-nus, long third syllable, which is retained in the pronunciation AU-gus-teen. But the best I've heard is that had it been Au-GUS-tine, it wouldn't have been shortened to "Austin," since accented syllables do not get lost, but we do see it shortened to "Austin" all over the place.

(The previous content in this section was lost during the last publication, but not due to any disagreement with it. Apologies to whomever contributed it.)


 * All of the english speaking university professors (theologians, church historians, biblical scholars) I know refer to him as "Aw-gus-tin" (or "Ah-gus-tin"). The only time I hear people say "Aw-gus-teen" is when they are referring to the city or amateurs referring to the saint's name. But then, in academia, many names are pronounced differently. If you're a tenured professor you can pretty much say it however you want and nobody is going to try to correct you!

"Just War"
"Just War" is a theory subscribed to by Augustine and taken up by the Catholic Church; however, it is in direct contradiction to the foundation of the Church. After Christ was betrayed by Judas, one of the disciples cut off the ear of a soldier. Jesus Christ put the ear back immediately and said, "Those who take up the sword will die by the sword." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.110.229 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


 * What does this have to do with the article? And Jesus also said that if any man didn't have a sword he was to sell his garment and buy one. So again, what does this have to do with the article? Thanks. Infinitelink 09:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is an opinion piece here... Augustine supposedly based his ideas about war on Cicero. The "Just War doctrine" of the Catholic Church today actually comes more from Thomas Aquinas, who of course further developed Augustine's version of it.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Augustine of Hippo → Augustine — This philosopher is much more often known by this one name. What's more, the other people mentioned at Augustine are trivial compared to this philosopher. Sugguest then moving Augustine to Augustine (disambiguation). At very least, Augustine should redirect here. Part Deux 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.


 * Support as nom. Part Deux 20:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to singular Augustine though I might potentially be open to a move to a Saint Augustine with that disambiguation page moved. In a secular setting and writings, Augustine always introduced Augustine of Hippo as typical of many philosophers of that period. Later in the text, the more informal Augustine maybe used. In a religious sense, he is overwhelmingly more commonly known as St. Augustine. There is ambiguity issues, obviously, with the city but as I said, I could be open to supporting that move. 205.157.110.11 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry, new here. I want to make sure that because there is more than one Augustine, that someone like myself, studying Bede or otherwise wouldn't wind up here first. --Prostudioetlabore 20:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with WP:DAB? A disambiguation header can (and should) be used when there is a clear primary meaning. Part Deux 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Opposed - I'm inclined to actually agree with the IP editor. I'm opposed to a singular Augustine but inclined to accept Saint Augustine which already redirects to the current article. --Born2flie 21:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have a perfectly stanadard and unambiguous way to distinguish Augustine of Hippo from Augustine of Canterbury; why mess with it? Saint Augustine would be worse; it naturally denotes both men, both canonized; and several places as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The African roots of Latin Christianity
French professor Claude Lepelley does not hesitate to say in paradoxical form: «Western Christianity was not born in Europe but south of the Mediterranean». In North Africa, Christianity was a religion of the poor. It took root at first in the cities and then spread to the countryside. In origin Christianity (and later Donatism) was a anti-Roman movement and therefore was very popular among the native Berber people...--Frenchy 90.36.148.188 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC) The African roots of Latin Christianity

First Paragraph of "Influence as a theologian..."
Is the wording in dispute that of "The basic idea of Catholic Christianity is that God made our world and then came to live in it through Iesous" or is it other wording? I believe I can provide additional references and where this paragraph information came from, if I knew exactly which sentence, or exactly which words are in dispute. Most of this came from the citation of "g" under References from pages 30 and 144. This book is easy to get at most public libraries worldwide. --Doug talk 12:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Meditation on Time in "Influence as a theologian and thinker.."
On Augustine's writing about time, Bertrand Russell says it is, “a very admirable relativistic theory of time. .... it is a great advance on anything to be found on the subject in Greek philosophy. It contains a better and clearer statement than Kant’s of the subjective theory of time – a theory which, since Kant, has been widely accepted among philosophers” - Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 1946 reprinted Unwin Paperbacks 1979, pages 352-3. I think it is very interesting that Russell, not exactly a disciple, should be so fulsome in his praise. Is it sufficiently notable to be worth mentioning? Budhen (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Line in "Influence as a theologian and thinker.."
1. The sentence: "According to Professor Deepak Lal, Augustine's vision of the heavenly city has influenced the secular faiths of the Enlightenment, Marxism, Freudianism and Eco-fundamentalism." needs a cite. Where does Professor Deepak Lal state this? 2. Additionally, the phrase "the secular faiths of the Enlightenment, Marxism, Freudianism and Eco-fundamentalism" betrays a bias. It needs to be clarified (in a cited quoted?) whether this is a bias of Professor Lal. If not, the sentence should be rephrased. 3. I added a to that sentence, and changed "secular faiths" to "secular projects and traditions."--wolftrappe 06/18/07

Last line in "Influence on Protestant reformers"
Last line in "Influence on Protestant reformers" says exaggerated: Martin Luther and John Calvin exaggerated [italics added] the detrimental effects of the original sin on the will, arguing that it completely destroys liberty IMHO 'exaggerated' does not seem NPOV. Perhaps better would be developed or extended -- or is the idea that Calvin and Luther misrepresented or misunderstood Augustine (which seems out of scope of Wikipedia)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Θεόφιλε (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Link for discussion/inclusion
I reverted content that was copied from this website: Saint Augustine Biography, but thought I would add the link here for discussion or inclusion as a reference. Flowanda 07:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of information
I'm doing research for a paper on Augustine when I found this page. Not sure if this is helpful, but the page doesn't seem to have an orderly flow. May I suggest a Chronological order or maybe some other method of orginazation. There should also be something that tells how he became a bishop and why he is considered a Saint. If this post is redundant, I apologize. JazzFrog66 17:00, 27 July 2007


 * Hopefully you're using primary sources, as wikipedia is a poor substitute for that kind of information! (Just saying). Ccel.org has all of his works (except Retractations) online. His major works of influence are the Confessions and City of God. Check those out...

Successor?
Who succeeded Augustine as Bishop of Hippo?--66.68.208.245 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (JazzFrog66) huh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.146.202 (talk) 22:44, August 26, 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not known. Jhobson1 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations for Influence of Stoics
The citations in this article may not be sufficient to satisfy skeptics among the editors of the Stoicism article. Could some provide more specific citations as to that point in this article, which I could them borrow and insert into the challenged (far short of a war) section of the Stoicism article? DCDuring 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest Changing the Title "Theologian and Thinker"
Some of you may find this trivial, but I suggest that this section be changed to "Influence as a Theologian and Philosopher." If you want to get really technical, you could replace "Theologian" with "Philosopher" as well. God, especially with regard to existence, is avidly discussed in the philosophical realm and has been since the ancient philosophers; there is hardly a well-known philosopher who did not at least discuss God in one way or another. I have studied St. Augustine on my way to getting a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy, and all of the Philosophy graduate students I know either mention, reference or quote Augustine on occasion.

For all of these reasons and more, I suggest that we change the title to either "Theologian and Philosopher" or simply "Philosopher."

BareAss 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Augustine in the Arts, after the Footnotes?
Why is that? Can we go ahead and move the Arts section? - Cyborg Ninja 07:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

'Supported papal supremacy'
I'm not sure if the letter in the footnote, which refers to 'an apostolic chair' is enough to found this claim. Mind you, I have no particular reason to believe it's false: I was just wondering if there was any actual evidence for it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See Retractations Book I, chapter 20 (page 90 in Bogan's translation, paperback edition). He leaves it open whether the Rock (in Matthew 16:18-19) is Peter or Christ (he asserted both in his lifetime).

original sin
I'm adding information on Original Sin from The Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church to WP: Original Sin, this page, probably others. I might take the time to clean things up a little as well. Augustine's a major force in Christian theology, and I could probably spare some time here. Leadwind (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Prophetic exegesis" - Original Research
The "prophetic exegesis" section of the article is completely OR, as well as quote farming. Unless someone can verify the material with suitable sources, it should be removed. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This section based on Froom, 1950, "The Prophetic Faith of our Father," Vol. 1. It gives a fair report of what Augustine wrote about Bible prophecy, without quoting everything he wrote on the subject.  Rather than quote Froom quoting Augustine, I simply went to the original sources Froom quoted from. I have a .pdf of the chapter in Froom that talks about Augustine.  I can email it if you wish.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could I get that pdf as well? I'm carl.bunderson@gmail.com. Thanks! Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Skeptic has provided his source, I propose we take down the tag, but continue discussing the section here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your responses. There are still a couple of major issues with this section. Firstly it still violates a number of Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability and original research. Policies about sourcing WP:PSTS state that primary sources are best avoided, and secondary and tertiary sources should be used because of the potential to misuse primary sources (which I believe has been done here, see below). So it is not appropriate to simply quote Augustine directly (primary sourcing) -- if you have access to Froom's analysis (secondary source) you must use that instead. Unless this is done, the section remains OR and will be removed.


 * I am also concerned that the section lacks NPOV. It selectively quotes Augustine to give the impression that he interpreted prophecies in a literal and linear manner, making him appear as a historicist or futurist, when in fact the majority of scholars agree that Augustine used symbolic exegesis of prophecy and thus was an amillennialist. There is definitely some inappropriate synthesis going on to support a particular POV. In summary, this section violates numerous policies at present and this must be rectified. Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Froom makes few comments (which I have mostly used) and mostly quotes directly from Augustine. As I noted above, I can send you a copy of the chapter of Froom so you can see for yourself (but I doubt you would bother.  You don't let the facts interfere with your beliefs).  The quotes are what Augustine actually had to say about the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.  Froom discusses Augustine's POV and then simply reports what Augustine said.  Given the limited space on WP I could only present but a part of what Froom reported.    Christian Skeptic (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I finally read the chapter you gave me, which does strike me as itself rather POV. He quotes Augustine plenty, but I feel like he is selectively quoting him and making a novel synthesis, especially since Augustine wrote so, so much. Froom's writing is easily discernable as POV and anti-Augustine. Also, he is held up only by evangelicals, and the only scholarly review I could find, from Speculum, made note that "The author's own particular viewpoints so dominate the work...". I suggest we delete the section as based on a work which is itself POV. Having said that, I think there were a couple of decent quotes about Augustine on pp. 477 and 481, should we like to discuss their ideas for inclusion within the article somewhere. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The book review by Handy gives his opinion from within his personal POV. His review was not peer reviewed.  He has this to say about the books:


 * “The author [Froom] declares that though the influence of prophetic interpretation on the religious thinking of past centuries has been more important than some of the commonly emphasized factors, it has been an overlooked or at least an underrated topic by even the best of historians. Hence 'the challenge of a great need was the impelling motive back of this really huge undertaking the obvious need for a thorough work of this sort, and the lack of anything of its kind extant in any language'.”


 * “These volumes are carefully prepared, profusely illustrated, elaborately indexed, and equipped with exhaustive bibliographies and useful charts. ... as a summary and collection of a great deal of fugitive material on a particular topic, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers is accurate and useful.”


 * Handy’s statement about point of view is in the context of scope of topic:


 * “Although it is stated [by Froom] that prophetism includes four particular functions, it is declared that these volumes will deal with only one of them; they will deal with the apocalyptic, 'outline' prophecies of the Books of Daniel and Revelation. ... It is regrettable that the work is restricted to only one aspect of prophetism so that no attention is given to the broader theological and politico-social aspects. So closely is the main topic pursued that there is not adequate contact with the ongoing life of the church or with the currents of the times; the historical picture that emerges is distorted by the narrow focus of the work.”


 * Handy only reviewed the first 2 books. Way back in 1952!  If he had reviewed all 4 volumes he would have found that the latter books spend a lot of time dealing with how this aspect of prophecy has deeply influenced the ongoing life of the church and politico-social aspects of history.  The fact that no review has been done of all four books is quite telling.


 * It is just Handy’s opinion that the focus on apocalyptic prophecies distorts the historical picture. He does not provide any evidence for such an assertion.  It is Froom’s contention, as evidenced throughout the books, that apocalyptic prophecies have been a major factor in the history of Europe and the world.


 * The context of Handy’s statement about Froom’s viewpoint is in light of Froom’s focus on the apocalyptic aspects of prophetism to the exclusion the other functions of prophetism.


 * “The author's own particular viewpoints so dominate the work and so dictate the selection of material that it is doubtful that those who do not share them will find themselves convinced by the argument.”


 * Froom’s “selection of material” was focused on the apocalyptic, outline prophecies of prophetism. It was not selected to fit Froom’s beliefs, but selected according to topic.   Christian Skeptic (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I support what Carl.bunderson has said. Without adequate support from a NPOV secondary or tertiary source, this section remains seriously OR and is inappropriate for WP. "the limited space on WP" is not an excuse for adding poor quality unencyclopedic material to WP. Contrary to your rather prejudicial remark, I am more than happy to read Froom's article -- please just add it to a personal webspace and let me know what the URL is.


 * There is absolutely no disputing that Froom is POV when it comes to eschatology and prophetic interpretation. He is a historicist pre-millennialist who is also anti-Catholic, and is concerned with trying to prove that church tradition supports his POV. Froom's use of Augustine is a blatant example of this. As I have said, church historians are virtually unanimous that Augustine moved away from literalism towards allegorical reading of apocalyptic prophecy, and advocated amillennialism. Froom selectively quotes from certain portions of Augustine to give a totally false impression of Augustine's theology. Tonicthebrown (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rome a second Babylon
Did Augustine believe that the Rome of his day was like the ancient Babylon?

"Babylon, like a first Rome, ran its course along with the city of God. . . . Rome herself is like a second Babylon."

"The city of Rome was founded, like another Babylon, and as it were the daughter of the former Babylon, by which God was pleased to conquer the whole world, and subdue it far and wide by bringing it into one fellowship of government and laws.”

Did he ever write else wise? Does this not accurately reflect what he thought? Rome is figuratively Babylon. Isn't that how Augustine interpreted prophecy? Figuratively. Froom brings this point out because Augustine was not the only early church father who believed that Rome was the prophetic Biblical Babylon. Almost all of them thought so.

Or do you simply object to this topic being brought up because it disagrees with what you think? It certainly doesn't disagree with that Augustine thought. Why do you want to be selective about this topic? This section is supposed to about what Augustine thought about prophecy not what you or some scholars think Augustine thought. Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's taking Augustine completely out of context. Read City of God. The whole, overarching point of that book, is that for Christians Rome doesn't matter. The city of man pales in comparison to the city of God. The quotes make it look like Augustine was preoccupied with thinking Rome was bad. Rather, he thought Rome, in the scheme of things, wasn't important. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's right. Augustine observed the downfall of Rome in the 5th century and City of God is written in that context. He has absolutely nothing to say about Papal Rome in the end-times, although that is where Froom's premillennialist anti-Catholic POV is heading. Tonicthebrown (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, Did Augusting think of that all by himself? Something man made cannot compare to something God made. Ooo.  Think of it!! Duh! Any 10 year old.....


 * Who said Augustine was preoccupied with thinking Rome was bad. (But then, anything that doesn't compare to the God's City just might be bad. Hmmm.)  But, neither Augustine nor Froom say anything about Rome or Babylon being bad, but just that Rome was like Babylon.  It is your vivid imagination that makes that connection.


 * Of course Augustine does not have anything to say about Papal Rome. And Froom does not imply that he does.  Froom is simply reporting that Augustine, and all other church fathers of the age, applied Rome as the iron legs and fourth beast of Daniel 2 and 7 and compared it to Babylon.  It is not till many centuries later that church fathers began applying Babylon to Papal Rome.  Froom adopted his views of prophetic Babylon and Papal Rome following the valid prophetic exegesis of these later theologians.


 * Only someone who has no evidence, no logic and no leg to stand on falls back on religious prejudice BS smear campaign. Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Four Kingdoms followed by Antichrist
What is it that you object to about this? Did Augustine agree with or disagree with Jerome about the 4 kingdoms and then the Antichrist?

"In prophetic vision he [Daniel] had seen four beasts [ch. 7], signifying four kingdoms, and the fourth conquered by a certain king, who is recognized as Antichrist, and after this the eternal kingdom of the Son of man, that is to say, of Christ. . . . Some have interpreted these four kingdoms as signifying those of the Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans. They who desire to understand the fitness of this interpretation may read Jerome's book on Daniel, which is written with a sufficiency of care and erudition."

Again, Froom points this out because ALL early church fathers up to Augustine's day held to the same view--4 kingdoms then Antichrist. Sure Augustine held to interpretation of some prophecies different from the others in his day. And in fact, all of them held to slightly different interpretations of some points of prophecy. However, there are some topics, such as this one, on which they were nearly unanimous. Christian Skeptic (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Antichrist in the Church? To reign three and a half years
All four topics presented here are points which many early church fathers talked about. And they are commonly talked about today, so reporting what Augustine had to say puts him in company with his times and is of interest for today. They are not insignificant. If Froom has misquoted and misrepresented Augustine, lets see some evidence other than "I don't like it." Without evidence or facts there is no reason to suppose that Froom has mis-represented Augustine or that this is just Froom's POV. And so no reason to delete these sections. Just your word, or someone else's opinion, don't mean nothing. Christian Skeptic (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That he was reviewed in a peer-related journal as being POV is sufficient evidence to say he is POV. The fact that he is POV makes him not a good source for WP to use. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. The power of one, insignificant review. That is really reaching!  How pitiful.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but there is nothing to suggest that his work should be included in this encyclopedia. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And there is zero evidence that his work should be excluded. All you have is your baseless POV bias and opinion.  Froom was a world class scholar and you are nothing.  Yet you think you are brighter, smarter and more knowledgeable to exclude Froom.  What a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic (talk • contribs) 04:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

L. F. Froom
Just a little history about Froom and the 4 vol set Prophetic Faith of our Fathers (6000+ pages) and the 2 vol set The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers (~3000 pages). Between the wars (WWI and WWII) Froom spent some 10 to 15 years visiting nearly every library in Europe and America that held special collections of ancient documents. He photographed every page of every book, pamphlet, manuscript, letter, etc., to be found that had anything at all to say about the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and other related topics. Material not in English was painstakingly translated. Beginning with the acquisition of the first materials in the 1920s up to the publication of the volumes starting in 1949 Froom studied and analyzed in detail what every Bible student and scholar (including many Biblical critics like Porphyry ) for nearly 2 millinia had had to say about Bible prophecies. No one else in the world has ever known or has ever had the perspective of what ALL the church fathers have had to say about Bible prophecy. If Froom has a POV it is based on thousands of years of perspective, thousands and thousands of hours over several decades of research and study, and standing on the wisdom of all who have gone on before. I doubt that those who put out that pitiful review spent 1/100000 of the time and effort of Froom and simply are not even in the same scholarly league as Froom. No critic has ever undertaken a detailed study of all the original material (all of which is freely available to anyone interested). They just don't have the guts.

The reason why people criticize Froom is because they are ignorant. They don't like his conclusions, despite the abundant evidence in the original materials. Historical truth just doesn't fit their beliefs. Besides, for Post-modernists, there is no such thing as truth anyway. Right? [The assertion, there is no truth, cannot be true because there is no truth!] Thinking themselves wise, they are fools. Their religious/anti-religious POV blinds them to what the original material plainly says. And what the Bible plainly says. Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No one else in the world has ever known or has ever had the perspective of what ALL the church fathers have had to say about Bible prophecy.
 * If that isn't completely and utterly biased, I don't know what is. So this one man is able to trump every other scholar on the planet who has ever lived? Comments such as this only prove that this so-called "Prophetic Exegesis" material is coming from a totally POV perspective. Tonicthebrown (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A fact is a fact. Up to Froom's time no one had ever read, analyzed and studied what all of the church fathers who wrote about Bible prophecy had to say.  And I have never seen anyone else who has ever done anything even close.  In fact, you would be hard pressed to find someone who has even read Froom's books.  And I'm sure this includes you.  The number of people who are qualified to critique Froom are few and far between.  Find one of them and THEN you can talk of POV.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Augustinian Theodicy
This article is already great, but it would be better again if it had a section devoted to Augustine's theodicy. Theodicies are one of the most fascinating ways of making Christianity more acceptable to others, even if those who believe in God know that He is so far above man that we should not presume to tell Him what he can or cannot do.Fledgeaaron (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Plotinus in Influences?
This might be a bit of a nit-pick, but Dr. Peter Brown and Henry Chadwick's work on Augustine seem to emphasize Plotinus as a prominent influence on Augie...something to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.113.68.224 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unconditional election
Contributors here may be interested in contributing to the discussion of Augustine and predestination at Talk:Unconditional_election. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page."
This is a quotation widely attributed to St. Augustine, and can be found all over the internet. But did he actually say it? If someone is in a position to determine this, and provide a reference, that would be very helpful - as it doesn't appear that one exists anywhere else.Alsosprachjon (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This attribution looks somewhat strange, since Augustine wasn't much of a traveler. Moreover such a comment would seem to disqualify Augustine himself, most of his flock, and the monastic ideal of stabilitas loci. When he speaks of travelling, it is often meant in a spiritual sense (e.g. the soul wandering around searching for God, etc.). At any rate I haven't been able to locate the phrase in his works doing a quick search in a text database. It may in fact be a quotation from a certain Fougeret de Montbron, an 18th century writer who authored a book on cosmopolitism. (See here and here.) Iblardi (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)