Early Church Fathers Creation Quotes

[Canuckster1127]

"In the day that they did eat, in the same day did they die and become death's debtors. For it was one day of the creation. It is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that day they also died.... From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father upon that same day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Iraneus (c. 180, E/W), 1.551

"In as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years will it be concluded ... For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years. In six days created things were completed. It is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the six thousand year. Iraneus (c. 180, E/W), 1.557

"What are the hundred-fold [rewards] in this world? ... These are in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified. This is the day in which God rested from the works He had created. It is the true Sabbath of the righteous. Iraneus (c. 180, E/W), 1.562

"The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.503 (Theres a note in my reference that it isn't clear whether this quote is referring to the actual seven days of creation.)

God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days. On the seventh day, He consecrated it with a blessing. Victorinus (c. 280, W), 7.341 (this raises a question for me. On the surface this would seem to mean a literal day, however, all he's doing is repeating the use of the word day, as Genesis is translated. Why should it be assumed that every use of the word "day" then in the early Church Fathers is a congitive reference on their part to say a 24 hour day as opposed to an age or longer period of time? It's simply a repeating of the text without further interpretation. By repeating or summing the text why should it be assumed that they could mean either, or even that they aren't doing anything but using the word day and would assume whatever the original creation text is saying? If so, then we need to be careful that we're not falling into the same argument that some in the YEC movement make for accepting the simplest use of the word "day" in the CF writings as they bring to the text. Plausible, but not the only understanding possible.

"Clement, Irenaus, and Justin the martyr and philosopher, comment with exceeding wisdom on the number six of the sixth day. They declare that the intelligent soul of man and his five susceptible senses were the six works of the sixth day. Anastasius, post Nicene writer citing Justin Martyr (c. 160, E); 1.302; aee also 2.98, 99; extended discussion: 7.341-7.342.

[Canuckster1127]

This site has most of the works of the Early Church Fathers on line in searchable format. It should suffice to look up any of the quotes on this thread and see it in the context of the entire work quoted.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

[Jac3510]

Bart, I'm not going to reply to this thread anymore due to this comment:

This is the heart of your argument and it demonstrates to me that you've accepted the position only the YEC holds to a literal hermeneutic. This is despite the fact that many, with stronger and deeper roots than you or I (at least me, I don't profess to be anything more than a somewhat self-educated person on many of these elements for which I've received no formal training) in looking at these elements have concluded that the OEC approach is a literal hermeneutic with evidence reaching back further than you're willing to accede. I accept that you've come to that conclusion. I don't believe your assertions as to what you expect or demand in terms of evidence is consistent with allowing scripture and people from that age to speak for themselves and accept that the hermeneutic you're applying would itself be somewhat foreign to them. I'm not saying that in an absolute sense, but more in terms of degree.

This is near offensive, and this is part of the type of condescension I was complaining about in our other discussion. I most definitely do not hold to "the position that the YEC holds to a literal hermeneutic," much less is it "the heart" of my "argument." Further, I've not made an argument anywhere in this thread. I have been asking a question about the nature of DA hermeneutics. Against your false assertion, I have said just the opposite multiple times, and that recently. I told you before I'm not interested in having an argument or a debate, much less playing tactical games. If it makes you feel better about your position to lump me in with the traditional Ham/Hovind brush, feel free. We will have nothing left to say. I expected more, especially from you, a man who I thought knew me and respected me enough to not resort to such tactics, and one who is himself constantly complaining about dogma and certitude.

Strawmen are not becoming, much less veiled ad hominems.

I told Danny in the other thread I don't discuss OEC on these boards. This is why. You, K, and Gman and all done this--the slightest questioning of DA/OEC gets a person treated like a "Hammite." It's far better to not discuss the issue at all. At least I don't have to worry about being treated so poorly. I would have thought that after . . . what . . . nearly ten years I think . . . of experience on these boards, I could have expected a true conversation among friends. Instead, I get this. Sorry. I'm not interested. I'm not interested in the question I asked anymore. I'm not interested in the conversation anymore.

My advice to you is the same as it was on the other thread. Try to step outside of yourself for one minute and imagine how you would feel if someone who supposedly knew you for years were to turn on you and assume you must be advocating the stupidest arguments imaginable, those that you yourself had long ago refuted. If that's the best you think of me, due to my position on creationism no less, then it should be extremely obvious how divisive OEC can become.

[Canuckster1127]

Bart, I'm not going to reply to this thread anymore due to this comment:

This is the heart of your argument and it demonstrates to me that you've accepted the position only the YEC holds to a literal hermeneutic. This is despite the fact that many, with stronger and deeper roots than you or I (at least me, I don't profess to be anything more than a somewhat self-educated person on many of these elements for which I've received no formal training) in looking at these elements have concluded that the OEC approach is a literal hermeneutic with evidence reaching back further than you're willing to accede. I accept that you've come to that conclusion. I don't believe your assertions as to what you expect or demand in terms of evidence is consistent with allowing scripture and people from that age to speak for themselves and accept that the hermeneutic you're applying would itself be somewhat foreign to them. I'm not saying that in an absolute sense, but more in terms of degree.

This is near offensive, and this is part of the type of condescension I was complaining about in our other discussion. I most definitely do not hold to "the position that the YEC holds to a literal hermeneutic," much less is it "the heart" of my "argument." Further, I've not made an argument anywhere in this thread. I have been asking a question about the nature of DA hermeneutics. Against your false assertion, I have said just the opposite multiple times, and that recently. I told you before I'm not interested in having an argument or a debate, much less playing tactical games. If it makes you feel better about your position to lump me in with the traditional Ham/Hovind brush, feel free. We will have nothing left to say. I expected more, especially from you, a man who I thought knew me and respected me enough to not resort to such tactics, and one who is himself constantly complaining about dogma and certitude.

Strawmen are not becoming, much less veiled ad hominems.

I told Danny in the other thread I don't discuss OEC on these boards. This is why. You, K, and Gman and all done this--the slightest questioning of DA/OEC gets a person treated like a "Hammite." It's far better to not discuss the issue at all. At least I don't have to worry about being treated so poorly. I would have thought that after . . . what . . . nearly ten years I think . . . of experience on these boards, I could have expected a true conversation among friends. Instead, I get this. Sorry. I'm not interested. I'm not interested in the question I asked anymore. I'm not interested in the conversation anymore.

My advice to you is the same as it was on the other thread. Try to step outside of yourself for one minute and imagine how you would feel if someone who supposedly knew you for years were to turn on you and assume you must be advocating the stupidest arguments imaginable, those that you yourself had long ago refuted. If that's the best you think of me, due to my position on creationism no less, then it should be extremely obvious how divisive OEC can become.

Jac,

I intended no offense. I simply took your statement at face value and the implications in the same manner that you have done in many of your statements with regard to my statements.

I've stated several times in this and other threads that I have a great deal of respect for you and that addressing the concepts are not ad hominems and I make it a point myself in many of the conversations we have to step back and remind myself of that when I'm tempted to take offense. Apparently I hit a nerve and you've taken it as me lumping you in with people who haven't even been mentioned on this thread, much less intended by me. I can't control how you will respond and all I can try to do, imperfectly at times, is address the comments you've made and what I believe you to be saying. You're free to correct me and that is a normal part of conversing.

Like it or not, YEC does indeed in many, (not all) contexts co-opt the term "literal" as if it were the exclusive domain of YEC and therefore an OEC approach or differing on what the literal meaning is, is therefore equated with diminishing the word of God. Again it's a question of degrees but you have said that you've moved back toward YEC because of hermeneutical concerns in which you believe YEC better preserves the integrity of the word of God. I respect that, and I still respect you while disagreeing with your conclusion. Choosing in favor of something for positive purpose you assert, carries with it a rejection and assessment of the alternative renderings as diminishing the Word of God. That is inescapable. I don't take that as a personal assessment of you toward me or anyone else on this board. I still do however, react against that argument because it does indeed cross over to some level of personal assessment that I could take personally if I were so inclined.

So, I'll take a look back over this thread and over the elements in particular you're reacting to, and I'll be open to adjusting statements or seeing where something I've said could have caused you to react in this manner as somehow directed at you personally. It may well be that I've done you an injustice, but again I'll look at it and mull it over and should I follow up you'll know that it's a considered action on my part and not simily lip service to attempt to placate you.

I can't speak for the others you mention in your response and as neither of them has been involved in this thread, it's apparent that this is more than a response to a single statement and something you've been feeling or building up for some time. It's hardly fair to cast the net in that manner with them.

I respect you decision to participate or not participate in any thread and welcome your participation anywhere on this board, including this thread if you change your mind.

blessings,

bart

[Canuckster1127]

Jac,

I've taken some time to review our conversation and your response and I've come to conclusion that in the passage you cite I could have been more clear that I was addressing a perceived position and not you personally. For that I take responsibility and apologize to you.

In terms of the general statements that I made about the position that appeared to me to be fairly clear in terms of using the word literal verses a figurative interpretation, I don't believe that they were unfair or unrepresentative of what you were saying or what is typically said from the YEC direction toward OEC. I qualified several times before in this thread that I didn't see that as an absolute and that I recognized that there were degrees of how strongly that was stated in YEC and at no time did I intend to include you in a blanket statement that didn't continue to recognize that.

Since in your statement you expanded the scope of the conversation to include others here and this board as a whole, allow me to respond that I don't believe it is unreasonable for a stated OEC site to be expected to defend its position or to respond to challenges that are made from the YEC position. In our conversations before we have disagreed on issues, at times stridently, and at times you have catergorized positions that I take as heresy. I could have chosen at that time to respond angrily at the implication then that your were indirectly categorizing me as a heretic. I don't believe I've done that, wishing instead to think the best of you and not to attribute something more than what you've said. In the few times I've alluded to it, you've clarified that while you may consider my position from your perscpective to be heretical you weren't going to far as to catalog me absolutely in that context and I accept and continue to accept that position from you.

So please allow me to suggest that both of us draw back for a while and extend some grace to one another.

This may not be a satisfying response to you, but as I promised in my initial response, I'm not going to apologize for having my positions and beliefs anymore than I expect you to apologize for you having yours. I'll attempt to be more careful in my language to make it clear that I'm addressing positions, rather than you directly in any form of an ad hominem. I'd hope though that you'd consider that I've had ample opportunity to respond in the same manner as comments of yours and I've tried to allow those to pass and believe better of you.

blessings,

bart

[dayage]

Yes, the dayage view is that long ages are the literal way to understand Genesis one. It is also our position that what the days were has been disputed for at least 2,000 years. My running tab for the first 400 years of church history finds 10 24-hour believers, 8 non-24-hour believers and 13 can't tells.

Dinner time!