@David Read: So when Philo says something you just do …

Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by krissmith777.

@David Read:

So when Philo says something you just do not agree with, you will just assume that it was only because of Hellenization?

More generally, it is remarkable that an Adventist would appeal to the fathers, especially the later fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries, such as Augustine. These people were known for fanciful, allegorical interpretations of Scripture, and doctrinal error. E. J. Waggoner encountered appeals to the fathers so often that he wrote a book rather pointedly entitled “Fathers of the Catholic Church,” in which he noted some of the bizarre and obviously erroneous teachings of Ireneus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, etc.

So I guess this is your way of dismissing even the early Christians who WERE NOT hellenized…like Philo was. I guess this shows your attitude on the subject along thses line: “If someone was hellenized, we will dismiss what he says as pure hellenization; if someone was NOT, we still will dismiss them.”

BUT you are COMPLETELY MISSING my pount. The point I am making by citing them is that their differing opinions prove that early Christianity was really diverse in the interpretation of Genesis 1. — I asked Sean this, and now I will ask you: If the interpretation of Genesis were so clear cut, then why can’t even non-hellenized Christians from the time period agree on a single interpretation. The dominant opinion most seem to have is that the meaning is “unclear.”

Plenty of the names here were not even Catholic, so it is actually unfair to call them “Fathers of the Catholic Church.” The Catholic Church, as we know it, came about AFTER the a good number of the Church Fathers, and definitely AFTER the Council of Nicea. Even if they were Catholic, that would have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of what they say.

As Adventists, we have our authorities, which are the Bible, and secondarily Ellen White. The fathers are not authoritative, or even particularly persuasive, for Adventists.

I cannot see why the Church Fathers cannot be seen as credible. I am not saying everything they say is accurate at all. All I am saying is that their diverse opinions show that early Christian interpretations of the passages in question were diverse. –As I keep pointing out, even the non-hellenized Christians cannot agree.

Ellen White is not an early, or even a primary source. And I am a lot more skeptical of her than I am about the Early Church Fathers…Evolution not EVEN being the reason for my skepticism, but that is a completely different topic.

krissmith777 Also Commented

SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@David Read:

No one says that the builders can “create with the word.” — God cannot be compared to builders.

Did God need a “power generator” to see what he was doing while he was creating the earth and the creatures in it before the forth day?– I would venture to say “no.”

Implying that God would probably need a power generator WOULD still work to demean…since it would set limitations on his creative ability.

Does God have limitations to his creative ability? No. Do human builders? Yes.

As I was reading this reply, I remembered one mocking comment that a skeptic of Genesis said. He said:

And God saw the light was good, because now he could see what he was doing.

Now I can see this with human builders… But I stand by my statement that it demeans God.


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Ken:

Let’s say we were in a room together and you were all teaching me the correct interpretation of Genesis. Let’s say each of your as teachers had a different, albeit slight, interpretation. Would it be wrong of me as a novice to ask if there was an empirical methodology to resolve the issue. Isn’t this what science does without the bias of faith or non faith?

It wouldn’t be wrong of you at all. In fact, I would encourage it.


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@BobRyan:

I didn’t say that that Revelation 21 said that the earth had no light; just that it cannot work with the first three Creation days having both “morning and evening” because Rev 21:25 clearly says that in God’s glory there is NO night, and therefore no evening.