Creationists: What do you think about St. Irenaeus?

[Truth be Told]

Attention Young Earth Creationists and Genesis literalists:

You have a problem.

That very problem is the Irenaen theodicy, which proceeds Augustine's theodicy by no less than two centuries. If you are unfamiliar with why this is significant, I will be happy to explain:

Let's put aside the science of creationism and evolution for just a minute. Here I'm going blow the lid on the garbage of "compromising" evolution with the Bible. And this is how it is...

In mainstream culture it is often assumed (and of course, no one is really to blame for this) that Christianity is strictly dependent on the concept of Original Sin (the idea that the reason for why we have so much wrong in the world around us is the result of the wrongdoings of the first two human beings ever put on this planet). Most Christians I know are adamant about the earth being 6,000 years old, not 4.5 billion. They do not want to consider the slight possibility they are primates. It is so revolting and disgusting and demeaning that it is not even plausible in their view. For these people, whatever the Bible says is truth and not just any truth, but truth that can only be interpreted literally. No exceptions.

It is extremely difficult to reconcile the notion that pain and suffering are the result of man's mistakes as opposed to what is implied by the Theory of Evolution: Pain and suffering are one of the primary mechanism's of life, and are indeed part of "the creative process" as Answers in Genesis once put it. Sure, we could go ahead and say Genesis is an allegory and everything seems fine. Except, under the umbrella of Original Sin, how do we account for evil in a rational and logical manner? What exactly is Genesis actually revealing? Things begin to get muddled. So we could go along with the thinking that man had done God wrong even in a figurative sense to make room for the scientifically empirical theory of biological evolution. But then at what point do we decide that man made the "break" from God's commands? Was there really a Garden of Eden at some point when the first humans popped up? How many were there present? Noah's Ark didn't really flood the world causing global catastrophe, so it must have happened in the local area. But to what extent does God's wrath and punishment become something to be respected and avoided at all costs?

Turns out that what we've been led to believe is "conventional" thinking is a bunch of crap. Original Sin is actually relatively new when you consider the fact that St. Irenaeus lived in the second century A.D., just a few decades after the death of Christ. Augustine lived during the time when the church was coming together and becoming an organized force.

Now of course St. Irenaeus himself was a Genesis literalist, but he thought Original Sin was insufficient as an explanation for why there is evil and imperfection in the world. As opposed to seeing evil as punishment for human actions, St. Irenaeus came up with the interpretation of Genesis from this clause "He shall be made according to our Image, and in our Likeness." What does this mean to St. Irenaeus? My understanding of it is that the image can be considered the blueprint for what God would have mapped out for the world, and the likeness is the toolbox. In other words, Irenaeus considered the possibility that evil was a shaping factor for good to take hold in the world. It is part of the natural and intended process, not something that came about as part of a botched experiment if you will. Indeed, living in a harsh reality is the necessary struggle all must endure in order to develop personal responsibility and individual accountability. The message of God is not something the world is so much in "denial" of, it is something that must be sought out. Under Original Sin, if you don't accept the message of God, then you are destined for "Hell" so to speak. But as I see it, Irenaeus has a much more Biblically accurate and logically consistent Christian idea of why evil exists in the world.

Funny how this all came about nearly two millenia before Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species? And doesn't it strike anyone that Augustine's ideas got priority, and Irenaeus was essentially ignored and swept aside? What might this say about the modern day mindset of Christianity and the Bible? Doesn't this smell sort of fishy to you guys?

I have searched for Creationist organizations and their response to this important Christian figure; I haven't found anything. Interesting. I really think this puts to rest the argument that Creationism is in defense of what the Bible "says" and if you disagree, then you are either a very liberal unorthodox believer or you just don't accept God as your sovereign power in life. However, as it has now been revealed here, the Irenaean theodicy is more conventional than Original Sin itself. Who is really going against tradition here? Who is really contradicting scriptural conventions? Care to guess? Obviously, my answer is with you Young Earth creationists, and all others who believe that evolution and the Biblical creation story are completely at odds with each other, rather than concerning different aspects of the human dillemma.

[Raphael]

Hey TBT,

I may work on a bigger response later, but for now: whether or not one considers Irenaeus is correct on this particular issue (original sin) he cannot be taken as having the authoritative view on Biblical matters as he is known to have made the odd large blunder or two (eg claiming Jesus was baptised in his 30th year, but was only crucified when he was in his 50's http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxiii.html).

The reason is probably hasn't been addressed much is because apart from futurists trying to prove that John's Revelation was after 70AD, he isn't used that much for settling theological discussions (that may be an oversight on the part of many, but that would be why you haven't really found anything)

[nightbringer]

I'm not a creationist (I'm on the fence) but I used to be and so I think I can express their position with sympathy.

I take it you are referring to "Original Sin" as the view that Adam and Eve were the first to sin and as a result instantiated "the fall", which can be understood in various ways, but most YECs take to be at least the instantiating of the death of all living things (perhaps besides plants) and even the introduction of natural disasters. It seems to me that this "high view" of the fall, if it can be put that way, does spring up primarily as a theodicy more than as a outworking of Scripture (although some YECs do think that Scripture supports this interpretation of the fall). But the doctrine of original sin (understood minimally as belief in Adam, Even and their sin) does not depend on this sort of theodicy. Many people take the existence of Adam, Eve and the Fall (however that is understood) literally because New Testament authors seem too as well. So Iraneus might prodive an alternative theodicy to the one provided by a high view of the fall, but that doesn't settle the question of whether there was an original human couple called Adam and Eve who first sinned. I think most Christians think there are good grounds (at least Scripturally) for believing that traditional picture, even if they don't believe that natural disasters and animal death are the result of the fall. So the question of whether belief in Adam and Eve is compatible with belief in evolution is still an important one.

[Vertetuesi]

Raphael: why don't you actually quote Irenaeus so we can judge him on his own words? We shouldn't have to rely on your commentary, interpretation or summary of his words which you fail to provide.

[Raphael]

Raphael: why don't you actually quote Irenaeus so we can judge him on his own words? We shouldn't have to rely on your commentary, interpretation or summary of his words which you fail to provide.

Or you could just click on the link I provided that goes directly to the chapter of Against Heresies I'm talking about.

[One Bad Pig]

How important to YEC is Original Sin? There isn't much of a consensus in the ECF on how literally one should interpret Genesis. The doctrine of Original Sin was first articulated by Augustine. The West took the idea and ran with it from there; the East, however, never really bought into it.

[Vertetuesi]

Or you could just click on the link I provided that goes directly to the chapter of Against Heresies I'm talking about.

Oops, sorry Raphael, strangely I attributed to you the OP by Truth be Told. My question should be directed to him not you!

How important to YEC is Original Sin? There isn't much of a consensus in the ECF on how literally one should interpret Genesis. The doctrine of Original Sin was first articulated by Augustine. The West took the idea and ran with it from there; the East, however, never really bought into it.

Original Sin isn't specific to YEC, but the teaching on the effects of Adam's sin/fall on the natural world is an important Biblical argument for YEC.

[Raphael]

Oops, sorry Raphael, strangely I attributed to you the OP by Truth be Told. My question should be directed to him not you!

Fair enough.

[Enow]

What do you think about St. Irenaeus?

I don't. He was not the originator of the concept of original sin.

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Was there really a Garden of Eden at some point when the first humans popped up? How many were there present?

Just Adam and Eve.

Genesis 3:20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Malachi 2:10Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Noah's Ark didn't really flood the world causing global catastrophe, so it must have happened in the local area.

As science admits that fossilization are rare and far inbetween, and yet it is amazingly purposeful ignorance on their part on how they use time to seperate the fossilized marine life with whale bones found with fossilized animal life in mass graves on mountaintops from the Andes mountains to Turkey, to Northern Africa and to China: hence all over the world.

Then you have legends of the flood from all over the world: it stands to reason that being how there are only eight survivors of this world wide flood that it would be carried about through most if not all cultures of the world.

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

Even the ancient Chinese pictographs for boat is made up of three smaller pictographs as "eight" and "mouths" and "vessel".

Then you have cave drawings of man with dinosaurs and images of dinosaurs on ancinet Inca potteries where "millions of years" had seperated them from man. While they contend the authenticity, they are forgetting one proof that declares loudly the truth.

John 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

That is a living dinosaur being described since no hippo nor an elephant has a tail that is the size of a tree which is what a cedar is.

Science is based on what we observe: and yet they fail to observe these facts.

Science dismisses creationism as going beyond observation, and yet they do the same thing by using vast amounts of time to justify their going beyond observation since no additional genetic information has been observed as being added in a living organism, but macroevolution is a fact? That's called applying faith in the evolution theory.

Playing word games with microevolution which is none other than the law of BioGenesis does not mean that macroevolution can be true.

Getting back on the main topic of original sin from your deviating side points: If death was in the world before Adam, then Adam cannot be blamed for bringing death in the world because of sin.

And if death was in the world before sin, then what price is that victory for Jesus Christ in conquering death when it has nothing to do with sin at all?

Sin was what it was that seperated us from God and thus death by sin.

Jesus paying the ultimate price by becoming sin for us on the cross, the testimony of the darkness by creation in the land as witnesses even in secular history, and in His words of His anguish for experiencing that seperation from God the Father in that process, should show that death and sin are intrinsically linked as His resurrection proved His victory.

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

2 Corinthians 5:21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

http://apologeticalliance.blogspot.c...-to-jesus.html

Excerpts quoted below from the link above regarding extrabiblical account of that supernatural darkness.

Thallus & Julius Africanus


ž Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD. His text has been lost, but it was referenced by Julius Africanus around 221 AD. Julius Africanus said (of Thallas’ writings)
• “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallas, in the third book of his ‘History’, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante-Nicene Fathers)
ž If this reference to Thallus’ writings actually refer to Jesus’ crucifixion, we can establish:
• The account of the crucifixion was known by mid-1st century
• There was a widespread darkness in the land implied to have taken place during Jesus’ crucifixion
• Unbelievers offered “rationalistic” explanation for supernatural events (implying that these events occurred)

So I am pretty well settled, thanks to Jesus being my Good Shepherd, about YEC as being true while fallible men with their fallible devices in science are falling about in the dark.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

[Cerebrum123]

So I am pretty well settled, thanks to Jesus being my Good Shepherd, about YEC as being true while fallible men with their fallible devices in science are falling about in the dark.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

I am a YEC as well, but the "science falsely so called" is not a good argument. Here is a good resource about arguments NOT to use. http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments

[KingsGambit]

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

There, Paul is talking about an early heresy that was basically an early form of gnosticism. It has nothing to do with evolution or even science at all - the Greek word translated as "science" there can also be translated as "knowledge", which is the meaning here.

[Cerebrum123]

There, Paul is talking about an early heresy that was basically an early form of gnosticism. It has nothing to do with evolution or even science at all - the Greek word translated as "science" there can also be translated as "knowledge", which is the meaning here.

That's exactly what the link I gave says.

[KingsGambit]

That's exactly what the link I gave says.

This is true.

[Enow]

I am a YEC as well, but the "science falsely so called" is not a good argument. Here is a good resource about arguments NOT to use. http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments

Do note the heading of that link:

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

Now here is a conundrum in arguing against the use of that verse.

“The phrase ‘science falsely so called’in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.” To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism.

Although I may have applied it to evolution, the verse still stands towards any science or any knowledge that is falsely so called.

The keeping of the meaning of that reference within the historical context is the conundrum because Paul's letter to Timothy was before gnosticism was developed later on. So in that sense, applying Paul's letter as referring to gnosticism is wrong just as saying that Paul was referring to evolution which is also wrong. I had applied it towards evolution, but I was not stating that Paul was referring to evolution.

Although it is true that the text gnosis refers to knowledge: it also refers to science in according to Strong's Concordance. By using that argument against using 2 Timothy 6:20-21 as referring to evolution is wrong as it would be wrong to say that it was referring to gnosticism. We can see how it can be applied to both, and thus it is not wrong to do that, because it is any knowledge which would include science that is false.

Thanks for your concern, but I do not believe I was out of line in applying it to the evolution theory. It is a false science.

[Cerebrum123]

Do note the heading of that link:



Now here is a conundrum in arguing against the use of that verse.



Although I may have applied it to evolution, the verse still stands towards any science or any knowledge that is falsely so called.

The keeping of the meaning of that reference within the historical context is the conundrum because Paul's letter to Timothy was before gnosticism was developed later on. So in that sense, applying Paul's letter as referring to gnosticism is wrong just as saying that Paul was referring to evolution which is also wrong. I had applied it towards evolution, but I was not stating that Paul was referring to evolution.

Although it is true that the text gnosis refers to knowledge: it also refers to science in according to Strong's Concordance. By using that argument against using 2 Timothy 6:20-21 as referring to evolution is wrong as it would be wrong to say that it was referring to gnosticism. We can see how it can be applied to both, and thus it is not wrong to do that, because it is any knowledge which would include science that is false.

Thanks for your concern, but I do not believe I was out of line in applying it to the evolution theory. It is a false science.

Interesting, I didn't quite think about it that way. Are you sure that gnosticism developed later though? If so, could you give me a link that can support that? I am a bit interested in the subject, after having to deal with some Gnostic types, it would be interesting to know a bit more about them.