Speak for yourself. Some of us are much smarter than he was:
“You’ve heard of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle?”
“Yes.”
“Morons.”
Calvin accepted “natural astrology”, which is the use of astrology in medicine, and rejected “judiciary astrology”, which is the use of astrology to predict the future. He rejected it, not because he didn’t believe in it, but because the desire to predict the future comes from “a curiosity not only superfluous and unprofitable, but also evil and wicked.”
Luther was the one who rejected the idea of astrology as unreliable, and apparently made fun of Melanchthon a lot for relying on it. Luther’s attitude seems to be, “Astrology doesn’t work, and it seems a little idolatrous to be putting such faith in the stars, but there’s nothing about it that’s explicitly condemned in the bible, so I’m not going to condemn it.”.
So, given that priests, bishops, popes, patriarchs, and all the other flavors of Church Authorities tend to write a whole lot about what human behavior is holy, and what is sin, can anyone come up with some sort of official, or at least consensus statement on astrology from any Christian church? Reformation, or twenty-first century, or in between would be of interest to me.
Tris
Official teaching of the Catholic Church.
Thanks, Travis.
So, anyone got tracts from Baptists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Mormons, Methodists, Evangelical United Brethren, Amish, Presbyterians, Society of Friends, Mennonites, Lutherans, Assembly of God, Christian Scientists, Jehova’s Witnesses, or others?
Tris
Is that from modern times or from the 16th Century?
Something like this probably: http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/fortune.htm
Astrology is justified by the Gospel of Matthew.
You mean the Star of Bethlahem?
That is very gracious of you. And it is also the best post in the history of the internet. Except for the porn.
That explains a lot.
The magi in general. Magi were astrologers.
Following the general theme of Protestant Forward-Thinkingness, I’d like to mention theSalem Witch Trials. Murderous, superstitious nonsense carried out by Stone Cold Calvinists.
Before the rise of modern science, astrology was based on the philosophical belief that that movement of the stars and planets caused or mirrored earthly events. That the heavenly motions were the expression of God’s will and were indicitive of the “primum movens”, the source of causality. Any failures of prediction were ascribed to imperfect accounting of all factors. Bunk by modern standards sure, but before modern science virtually all theories were based on philosophical induction, so alchemy and most of premodern medicine were in the same boat.
So if someone is portrayed positively, than it means the Bible is saying what they’re doing is right?
Most of whom realized it was a mistake within a few years such at the Mathers.
Matthew says their methodology was right about Christ, so yeah, Matthew endorses Zoroastrian astrology as valid science. Genesis and Luke both also say that stars can serve as “signs.”
So what?