St. Augustine and Creation

[MrsFoundit]

Two different perspectives on Augustine and Genesis are presented in the links below.

I cannot see it as resolving any conflicts between Creationism and Theistic Evolution. It comes down to how anyone interprets Augustine.

St. Augustine Rediscovered: A Defense of the Literal Interpretation of St. Augustine’s Writings on the Sacred History of Genesis

Interpreting Genesis 1 with the Fathers of the Church | Thomistic Evolution

My own opinion is closest to "in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. Where he cannot understand Holy Scripture, let him glorify God and fear for himself." (Emphasis mine).

History

What do you think?

 

[HTacianas]

Two different perspectives on Augustine and Genesis are presented in the links below.

I cannot see it as resolving any conflicts between Creationism and Theistic Evolution. It comes down to how anyone interprets Augustine.

St. Augustine Rediscovered: A Defense of the Literal Interpretation of St. Augustine’s Writings on the Sacred History of Genesis

Interpreting Genesis 1 with the Fathers of the Church | Thomistic Evolution

My own opinion is closest to "in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. Where he cannot understand Holy Scripture, let him glorify God and fear for himself." (Emphasis mine).

History

What do you think?

"If (unbelievers) find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? "

 

[MrsFoundit]

"If (unbelievers) find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? "

Does not resolve:

"I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp."

For those who do not struggle to understand miraculous and supernatural intervention.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

If I may, there's always a question that comes to my mind anytime someone is expounding and proclaiming as truth, something that has been understood by someone else, outside of the Hebrew authors of the Scriptures as truth...how do we know?

Do we know the person personally? Are we familiar with their testimony and how they actually lived their lives day to day? How do we know, outside of those who have been entrusted with the very oracles of God, that any other teacher is proclaiming the truth?

God bless,
IN Christ, ted

 

[MrsFoundit]

Hi all,

If I may, there's always a question that comes to my mind anytime someone is expounding and proclaiming as truth, something that has been understood by someone else, outside of the Hebrew authors of the Scriptures as truth...how do we know?

Do we know the person personally? Are we familiar with their testimony and how they actually lived their lives day to day? How do we know, outside of those who have been entrusted with the very oracles of God, that any other teacher is proclaiming the truth?

God bless,
IN Christ, ted

It is a very good question.

It is even possible Augustine agreed with you. "But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to our Scripture, ...either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt."

 

[Jamsie]

What do you think?

I think that Genesis 1 should be approached with humility however, nothing wrong with defending one's interpretation.

 

[miamited]

It is a very good question.

It is even possible Augustine agreed with you. "But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to our Scripture, ...either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt."

Hi foundit,

Yes, but my point is that, when we start accepting the teaching of teachers outside of the Scriptures, how do we know that they speak with God's approval. If you get a moment, Google John Shelby Spong. 1700 years from now will there be people quoting his teachings and saying, "Well, this is what bishop Spong believed."

They won't have known him and that he was considered a heretic by many believers. They'll just have his writings and know that he was apparently a great man in the church, I mean to carry the title of Bishop, one would naturally accept that he had the blessings of the church in what he taught. Of course, Spong is an extreme example, but it makes my point. We don't really know anything about Augustine and what his relationship with God was actually like. We just know that he was, in his day and by some fellowships, considered a great man of God who wrote down some of his understandings of the things of God. But really, what evidence do we have that he was correct about the things that he wrote down?

For me, while I approve of everyone having and holding to what they have convinced themselves is the truth, I'm not willing to quickly adopt some teaching by some person who was not apparently approved of God enough to have his writings included in the Scriptures. Especially if that teaching seems to go against what has long been held by even earlier believers as the truth of God's word.

The Jews have, for the most part, always believed that the creation event dated back to the days of Adam and Eve. So much so, that even today, their calendar is claimed to number its years from that creation event. Now yes, today you get all sorts of arguments that they somehow have proof that most of the Jews didn't believe in a young earth creation model, but how then do you explain that their very calendar that they use every day and have throughout the last few centuries, is based on a known start date that is claimed to be marked from the day of God's creating the heavens and the earth and all that is in them?

For me, when it comes to the things of God, I'm much more inclined to believe what many of the Jews have long believed concerning the historical record. They may not have been very good at figuring out God's redemptive plan of salvation, but they took very, very seriously their Tanakh. The nation of Israel, from at least the days of Moses, until Jesus came, always believed that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and that it was the six days just immediately prior to Adam's life beginning.

The Talmud, Midrash, and the Kabbalistic work, the Zohar, state that the 'deadline' by which the Messiah must appear is 6,000 years from creation. According to tradition, the Hebrew calendar started at the time of Creation, placed at 3761 BCE. The current (2019/2020) Hebrew year is 5780.


Isn't it odd that the people of God, in all three of their religious works, believe that their Messiah is going to come to them 6,000 years from the 'date of creation'. That they date this current year as the year, from creation, 5,780. I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone would fall gullible to some tale that the Jews didn't believe in a young earth creation model.

So, Augustine is free to write what Augustine believes to be the truth, but unless there's some evidence of his speaking with God's authority on any of this, I'm not buying it as necessarily being the truth of the things of God. A particular fellowship of the church may believe it, and I think Jesus' letters to the seven churches makes clear to us that the church, as we understand it here on the earth, is not always perfect in doing what the Lord wants them to be doing. Jesus had some pretty strong rebuke for a couple of those churches and what they were following and teaching. How do I know that I know, that the church that Augustine was aligned with, wasn't one of those churches?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi HT,

If I may add a thought here:

"If (unbelievers) find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? "

How many unbelievers do you know that believe that Jesus came to life from being dead? How many unbelievers do you know believe that man can have salvation because someone died in their place? How many unbelievers do you know believe that a virgin woman who had never had sexual relations with a man wound up pregnant? Or that a great sea split in two and stood with walls of water on both sides as the Israelites walked through with all their worldly possessions from one shoreline to another?

God's word is replete with things that unbelievers find a Christian 'mistaken' about. Things which they themselves know well. How are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods like a global flood, a river and surrounding ground water becoming blood, an ass talking?

If you're going to argue that the creation event, and the biblical explanation and understanding thereof, is what keeps people from accepting God's offer of eternal life, because man's reason and experience would deny such a thing, I believe you have a lot of claims of the Scriptures to overcome that such reasoning and experience denies.

So, while your prose sounds so very, very right and even sounds wise as it trips off the tongue and makes such a wonderful point about how gullible Christians are keeping people from the kingdom of God, I'm not convinced that it's really the truth as to why unbelievers refuse to accept God's offer. Jesus, the very Son of God who knew absolutely every true thing about God and the the historical record of the Scriptures, wasn't particularly successful in drawing great crowds of people to the truth of God's offer of eternal life with Him. He certainly had lots of folks listen and seemed so often times to mesmerize a crowd with his wisdom, but in the end, as he was dying on that cross lifted up over the city of Jerusalem, there seemed to not be a majority of people proclaiming his word as truth. So for me, I think there's a rather different reason why people don't come to understand and accept the truth of God, rather than some of what they find in the Scriptures seems so fantastical.

As Jesus made his way throughout all of Israel, there was a day that he spoke about a parable of a farmer who was sowing seed across his field. Jesus spoke of the different places where the seed would come to rest as it was scattered about the field. Some of the seed, he said, fell on the hard and compacted pathway. Dirt in which it was impossible for the seed to find even a small crack in the dirt in which to send its root. Some of the seed fell on softer soil, but it was among brambles and thorns and weeds that prevented it from growing as a healthy plant even though it had found some place to put its root. Still other seed fell on reasonably soft soil, but it was very thin and the root could not find purchase to withstand the onslaught of winds and rain and sun and it also withered and died without producing any crop. Finally, there was the seed that landed on good soil and that seed grew to produce a crop of a hundred fold.

I contend that the parable of the sower is a truth that describes the acceptance of God's word among the people of the earth. I also contend that the failure of the three kinds of unproductive seed had very little to do with any teaching or belief in the creation event.

So, in my sitting back and reflecting on your prose concerning 'why' unbelievers seem to turn away from the truth of God's word, I don't really find that how one might believe or understand the creation event as being any real hindrance. I find that the author of your short piece of prose may not have really understood that the things of God often go against the reason and experience of man. Therefore, the position that it makes is a false position.

I also take note of Jesus' words, "For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Jesus seemed to know that there were going to be a lot, I find that according to his use of the words 'many' and 'few', likely a vast majority of people, who won't be entering through the narrow gate. I doubt that it will be, or ever has been, because of God's description of His creating all things as He claims that He did.

That's my 2¢ worth on the subject.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[HTacianas]

Hi HT,

If I may add a thought here:


How many unbelievers do you know that believe that Jesus came to life from being dead? How many unbelievers do you know believe that man can have salvation because someone died in their place? How many unbelievers do you know believe that a virgin woman who had never had sexual relations with a man wound up pregnant? Or that a great sea split in two and stood with walls of water on both sides as the Israelites walked through with all their worldly possessions from one shoreline to another?

God's word is replete with things that unbelievers find a Christian 'mistaken' about. Things which they themselves know well. How are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods like a global flood, a river and surrounding ground water becoming blood, an ass talking?

If you're going to argue that the creation event, and the biblical explanation and understanding thereof, is what keeps people from accepting God's offer of eternal life, because man's reason and experience would deny such a thing, I believe you have a lot of claims of the Scriptures to overcome that such reasoning and experience denies.

So, while your prose sounds so very, very right and even sounds wise as it trips off the tongue and makes such a wonderful point about how gullible Christians are keeping people from the kingdom of God, I'm not convinced that it's really the truth as to why unbelievers refuse to accept God's offer. Jesus, the very Son of God who knew absolutely every true thing about God and the the historical record of the Scriptures, wasn't particularly successful in drawing great crowds of people to the truth of God's offer of eternal life with Him. He certainly had lots of folks listen and seemed so often times to mesmerize a crowd with his wisdom, but in the end, as he was dying on that cross lifted up over the city of Jerusalem, there seemed to not be a majority of people proclaiming his word as truth. So for me, I think there's a rather different reason why people don't come to understand and accept the truth of God, rather than some of what they find in the Scriptures seems so fantastical.

As Jesus made his way throughout all of Israel, there was a day that he spoke about a parable of a farmer who was sowing seed across his field. Jesus spoke of the different places where the seed would come to rest as it was scattered about the field. Some of the seed, he said, fell on the hard and compacted pathway. Dirt in which it was impossible for the seed to find even a small crack in the dirt in which to send its root. Some of the seed fell on softer soil, but it was among brambles and thorns and weeds that prevented it from growing as a healthy plant even though it had found some place to put its root. Still other seed fell on reasonably soft soil, but it was very thin and the root could not find purchase to withstand the onslaught of winds and rain and sun and it also withered and died without producing any crop. Finally, there was the seed that landed on good soil and that seed grew to produce a crop of a hundred fold.

I contend that the parable of the sower is a truth that describes the acceptance of God's word among the people of the earth. I also contend that the failure of the three kinds of unproductive seed had very little to do with any teaching or belief in the creation event.

So, in my sitting back and reflecting on your prose concerning 'why' unbelievers seem to turn away from the truth of God's word, I don't really find that how one might believe or understand the creation event as being any real hindrance. I find that the author of your short piece of prose may not have really understood that the things of God often go against the reason and experience of man. Therefore, the position that it makes is a false position.

I also take note of Jesus' words, "For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Jesus seemed to know that there were going to be a lot, I find that according to his use of the words 'many' and 'few', likely a vast majority of people, who won't be entering through the narrow gate. I doubt that it will be, or ever has been, because of God's description of His creating all things as He claims that He did.

That's my 2¢ worth on the subject.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Or how many teens are driven from the knowledge of Christ because someone told a literal six day creation is somehow an article of the Christian faith?

 

[Jamsie]

Or how many teens are driven from the knowledge of Christ because someone told a literal six day creation is somehow an article of the Christian faith?

So true, somehow it seems that Romans 1:20 is neglected, and the Genesis creation account requires only a superficial study. Scientific discoveries are the great enemy though we make use of those same discoveries daily...perhaps some humility and more considered thought to creation may be appropriate.

 

[Jamsie]

Or how many teens are driven from the knowledge of Christ because someone told a literal six day creation is somehow an article of the Christian faith?

Augustine was not alone with his relevant thoughts -

"Modern culture is a tremendous force. It affects all classes of society. It affects the ignorant as well as the learned. What is to be done about it? In the first place the Church may simply withdraw from the conflict. She may simply allow the mighty stream of modern thought to flow by unheeded and do her work merely in the back-eddies of the current. There are still some men in the world who have been unaffected by modern culture. They may still be won for Christ without intellectual labor. And they must be won. It is useful, it is necessary work. If the Church is satisfied with that alone, let her give up the scientific education of her ministry. Let her assume the truth of her message and learn simply how it may be applied in detail to modern industrial and social conditions. Let her give up the laborious study of Greek and Hebrew. Let her abandon the scientific study of history to the men of the world. In a day of increased scientific interest, let the Church go on becoming less scientific. In a day of increased specialization, of renewed interest in philology and in history, of more rigorous scientific method, let the Church go on abandoning her Bible to her enemies. They will study it scientifically, rest assured, if the Church does not. Let her substitute sociology altogether for Hebrew, practical expertness for the proof of her gospel. Let her shorten the preparation of her ministry, let her permit it to be interrupted yet more and more by premature practical activity. By doing so she will win a straggler here and there. But her winnings will be but temporary. The great current of modern culture will sooner or later engulf her puny eddy. God will save her somehow—out of the depths. But the labor of centuries will have been swept away. God grant that the Church may not resign herself to that."

"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all of the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the restless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle at its root." J. Gresham Machen

 

[HTacianas]

So true, somehow it seems that Romans 1:20 is neglected, and the Genesis creation account requires only a superficial study. Scientific discoveries are the great enemy though we make use of those same discoveries daily...perhaps some humility and more considered thought to creation may be appropriate.

Origen is the earliest commentator on Genesis that I know of. Around 200 AD or so he ruled out a literal six day creation based on the internal wording of Genesis itself.

I've read numerous Jewish commentaries on creation that range from instantaneous creation to a literal six days to an unspecified period of time. The most fascinating one I ever read was from the middle ages that God had created numerous creations, all on the same earth. But he wasn't satisfied with the first ones so wiped them out in succession and recreated over and over until he was satisfied. That commentary was made with no scientific yardstick to measure by.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Or how many teens are driven from the knowledge of Christ because someone told a literal six day creation is somehow an article of the Christian faith?

One quick internet search says it is not. Most Creationists do not regard it as a salvation issue, and potential Christians have to be willing to believe in miracles anyway, because the resurrection is.

 

[Jamsie]

One quick internet search says it is not. Most Creationists do not regard it as a salvation issue, and potential Christians have to be willing to believe in miracles anyway, because the resurrection is.

True, however, many will claim, with some subtly, if you don't believe their interpretation of Creation then faith questions arise. If you don't believe YEC how can you believe the rest of the Bible? Yes, it is not directly regarded as so but if you read through "Creationism & Theistic Evolution" one will find it strongly suggested. To believe in miracles one must first believe that God exists...

 

[MrsFoundit]

Yes, it is not directly regarded as so but if you read through "Creationism & Theistic Evolution" one will find it strongly suggested.

You mean it requires an assumption, adding words that are not there to words that are, and that is on top of ignoring clear statements to the contrary from the very people you accuse. This is all already in spite of a quick internet search revealing a variety of interpretations explained and most churches not requiring it, particularly not for seekers and new members.

I believe this argument is a bit weak.

 

[MrsFoundit]

To believe in miracles one must first believe that God exists...

Do you know of people becoming Christians without believing that God exists?

 

[miamited]

Or how many teens are driven from the knowledge of Christ because someone told a literal six day creation is somehow an article of the Christian faith?

Hi HT,

Uhh, not likely, but I've certainly heard 'christians' say that it's been happening. My personal experience is that I've never spoken to anyone about the faith, as far as telling them of the hope we have through Christ, where the issue has even come up. I've never approached anyone with the 'Roman Road' of salvation and thrown in somewhere in that conversation, "Oh, and you have to believe in a miraculous creating event that likely happened about 6,000 years ago according to the Scriptures."

Personally, I think the complaint is what is referred to as a red herring.

I've listened to literally hundreds of believers share the faith and I've never once heard a single one of them even discuss the creation event. That knowledge and understanding generally comes much later in someone's walk with the Lord.

Now, for believers it can be a sticking point, but if someone is going to throw away their faith because they have a hard time reconciling the creation event, I don't think they understood what it was that they were believing anyway. Even if the issue of the creation is not agreed among believers, for someone to throw away their faith over it, then they, don't understand what Peter understood when he was faced with the question of leaving his faith in the Lord. "Where else can we go? Only you have the words of eternal life."

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Jamsie]

You mean it requires an assumption, adding words that are not there to words that are, and that is on top of ignoring clear statements to the contrary from the very people you accuse. This is all already in spite of a quick internet search revealing a variety of interpretations explained and most churches not requiring it, particularly not for seekers and new members.
I believe this argument is a bit weak.

The point was, obviously poorly made, that although acknowledged to NOT be an issue of salvation in one sense questions arise concerning such things as denying parts of scripture. Just as I noted "If you don't believe YEC how can you believe the rest of the Bible?" Further, I was speaking on an idividual basis not as some corporate dictum. The assumption that I was trying to suggest is that because one has an interpretation of Creation contrary to YEC does not render all scripture invalid ... which happened to be what was stated in another thread.

 

[Jamsie]

Do you know of people becoming Christians without believing that God exists?

Again, apologies for not being clear...shouldn't rush posts. The salient point of Genesis 1 is to me "In the beginning God..." and from there Hebrews 11:6 - details should be addressed with some humility. I can believe that God exists without subscribing to YEC, etc...………..

 

[Jamsie]

Now, for believers it can be a sticking point, but if someone is going to throw away their faith because they have a hard time reconciling the creation event, I don't think they understood what it was that they were believing anyway. Even if the issue of the creation is not agreed among believers, for someone to throw away their faith over it, then they, don't understand what Peter understood when he was faced with the question of leaving his faith in the Lord. "Where else can we go? Only you have the words of eternal life."

I tend to agree with your thought here but perhaps this might be of interest:

Former Young-Earth Creationists (personal stories)

A Christian geologist tells his story