What did the church fathers believe concerning Genesis?

[shunyadragon]

There has been confusion and a diversity of 'opinions' concerning how the church fathers view Genesis. This thread I hope clarifies this issue. My view is that those that did express their views, a majority believed in a literal Genesis with the only variability being in the length of time a Creation day is. By far the majority supported a six day week, and some a longer day. This dominant view included a literal Adam and Eve.

I believe it is Augustine, not some, who described the initial Creation event as instantaneous, and also described a six day event that may be immensely long not 24 hours, and left open some interpretation based on evidence.

I consider the belief that Creation took place in 6 days or 6,000 years (2 Peter 3:8) to be literal Creation accounts.

I will focus on those church fathers who did express their views on Genesis. It is true some church fathers did not even mention this issue of the interpretation of Genesis.




As we will see the earliest writer had a distinct effect on the later church fathers.

Augustine seemed to express an independent view from other church fathers. I will discuss his view in more detail later. I believe described the initial Creation event as instantaneous, and also described a six day event that may be immensely long not 24 hours, and left open some interpretation based on future discovered evidence.

[rogue06]

There has been confusion and a diversity of 'opinions' concerning how the church fathers view Genesis. This thread I hope clarifies this issue. My view is that those that did express their views, a majority believed in a literal Genesis with the only variability being in the length of time a Creation day is. By far the majority supported a six day week, and some a longer day. This dominant view included a literal Adam and Eve.

I believe it is Augustine, not some, who described the initial Creation event as instantaneous, and also described a six day event that may be immensely long not 24 hours, and left open some interpretation based on evidence.

I consider the belief that Creation took place in 6 days or 6,000 years (2 Peter 3:8) to be literal Creation accounts.

I will focus on those church fathers who did express their views on Genesis. It is true some church fathers did not even mention this issue of the interpretation of Genesis.

Source: http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43

He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation

© Copyright Original Source

As we will see the earliest writer had a distinct effect on the later church fathers.

Augustine seemed to express an independent view from other church fathers. I will discuss his view in more detail later. I believe described the initial Creation event as instantaneous, and also described a six day event that may be immensely long not 24 hours, and left open some interpretation based on future discovered evidence.

I'll try to remember to get to this after the holidays but for now I want to point out something about what I bolded.

Even according to the days being literal 24 hour long interpretation humans were not around on the first day. IIRC Genesis 1 describes Adam as being created on the fourth day making it real hard for him to "[fall] into sin on the literal first day of Creation."

[seanD]

My view is that those that did express their views, a majority believed in a literal Genesis with the only variability being in the length of time a Creation day is. By far the majority supported a six day week, and some a longer day. This dominant view included a literal Adam and Eve.

Paul and Luke were the first to espouse a literal Genesis creation.

[Truthseeker]

Paul and Luke were the first to espouse a literal Genesis creation.

That implies atleast one verse in the Bible that you think supports such an assertion. Please tell us what.

[seanD]

That implies atleast one verse in the Bible that you think supports such an assertion. Please tell us what.

First answer me this: If you don't believe that Paul and Luke understood the Genesis creation as history, explain to me what they believed about it exactly.

[shunyadragon]

First answer me this: If you don't believe that Paul and Luke understood the Genesis creation as history, explain to me what they believed about it exactly.

I agree with you, sort of, indirectly that he believed in a literal Adam in the context of a literal Genesis.

I think it is justified to request that you provide scripture to justify your claim.

[shunyadragon]

Two more church fathers and the belief in a literal Genesis. Please note the link as students of previous church fathers.

[shunyadragon]

I'll try to remember to get to this after the holidays but for now I want to point out something about what I bolded.

Even according to the days being literal 24 hour long interpretation humans were not around on the first day. IIRC Genesis 1 describes Adam as being created on the fourth day making it real hard for him to "[fall] into sin on the literal first day of Creation."

I believe Barnabas is reference to Genesis 2:4, interpreted as the first day God created human, and possibly why Augustine considered Creation instantaneous.

Genesis - 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

[robrecht]

The idea of creation occurring simultaneously was already a more ancient Jewish idea, prior to the church fathers, offered as one interpretation among others of Genesis 1. By the way, Genesis 1 describes the creation of mankind on the sixth day. Genesis 2,4 was indeed part of the problem being resolved by this Jewish midrash, but it also related to the syntax of Genesis 1,1, for which there were diametrically opposed Jewish interpretations, one of which can be used to support creatio ex nihilo and the other which could be used to support the idea of pre-existing stuff out of which God created the heavens and the earth. Both uses of this text probably go beyond the intent of the original authors of Genesis 1 as there does not seem to be any indication that this was an explicit consideration of this question being addressed by the Hebrew text.

[shunyadragon]

The idea of creation occurring simultaneously was already a more ancient Jewish idea, prior to the church fathers, offered as one interpretation among others of Genesis 1. By the way, Genesis 1 describes the creation of mankind on the sixth day. Genesis 2,4 was indeed part of the problem being resolved by this Jewish midrash, but it also related to the syntax of Genesis 1,1, for which there were diametrically opposed Jewish interpretations, one of which can be used to support creatio ex nihilo and the other which could be used to support the idea of pre-existing stuff out of which God created the heavens and the earth. Both uses of this text probably go beyond the intent of the original authors of Genesis 1 as there does not seem to be any indication that this was an explicit consideration of this question being addressed by the Hebrew text.

Agree

[arnoldo]

First answer me this: If you don't believe that Paul and Luke understood the Genesis creation as history, explain to me what they believed about it exactly.

Also, see Matthew 19:4.

[seanD]

I agree with you, sort of, indirectly that he believed in a literal Adam in the context of a literal Genesis.

I think it is justified to request that you provide scripture to justify your claim.

He didn't just believe in Adam, he believed that Adam was the "first man" and that through this man death entered the world, which is diametrically opposed to not just ToE but any esoteric accommodative theories about a "special" race of humans that God isolated from evolving lower primates (which the science of ToE doesn't support either). In other words, the choice is either or. Either ToE happened or Genesis creation happened. Paul and Luke believed the latter.

[Truthseeker]

First answer me this: If you don't believe that Paul and Luke understood the Genesis creation as history, explain to me what they believed about it exactly.

I need to look in the Bible.

[shunyadragon]

Let's take a look at Clement



http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43

I consider the list given in this source incomplete. I will follow up with the view of others also.

The exception given here is Origen. We will explore Origen's view next. I also consider Augustine also an exception worth exploring.

[shunyadragon]

The following is a selection of Origen's writings concerning this subject.


The previous source claimed Origen was influenced by pagan sources. Any other evidence for this?