Catherineanne
Well-Known Member
- Sep 1, 2004
- 22,924
- 4,645
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Context, context. Augustine does not claim the account of Genesis to be not literal. In his work "On the Soul and It's Origins" he certainly claims it. In it's work that you quote, Augustine attempts to address the often asked questions "Who made it?" "How?" and "Why?". All of his answers as based on the Genesis account. Furthermore, other early church fathers and medieval church fathers confirm the literality of Genesis. Check out Iranaeus, "Against Heresies", Justin Martyr, "Hortatory Address to the Greeks", Anselm, "Monologiom", Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologia", etc. etc. etc.
I leave you to your research.
This is all anachronistic nonsense.
When the church fathers say the Bible is true they do not mean literally true. They mean spiritually true; true in the sense that it is intended to be true.
Augustine, Ireneus etc were many things, but literalists? No such thing. You may like to consider the concept of allegory in relation to the concept of a literal Bible, before continuing with these kinds of nonsensical statements.
Clement of Alexandria
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).
Last edited:
Upvote
0