II : With Ignatius of Antioch and Ron Aller : Two Days Ago / One Day Ago

With Ignatius of Antioch and Ron Aller : I : Before I Get In & My First Response · II : Two Days Ago / One Day Ago · III : Less than One Day Ago · IV : Epilogue

Ignatius of Antioch

@Hans-Georg Lundahl first off not everything the Church Fathers was dogma and there is no universal consensus on the issue. Even your best sources have signs that they didn't believe in Creationism.

St Augustine clearly wasn't a Creationist but believed in an allegorical view as did Origen and Philo the Jew who probably became a Christian from sources and he was seen as a good source from the Fathers.

St.Augustine believed that creation was using a the symbol of a perfect number 6 and then capping the tabernacle on the seventh and believed that creation was instantaneous but was unsure about that part.

Also, Pope Pius IX wrote that Genesis was Epic Poetry to refute pagan mythology and establish God about the pagan gods they were about in the ancient world.

Pope Francis and John Paul II were both pro-evolution with Francis saying it a fact.

No ecumenical council or real ex- cathedra statement has been made on the issue.

The beneath St. Basil the Greats Hexaermeron 2:8 quote which creationists use to prove in the belief of a 24 hour day in the same book and chapter he says,

"Such is also the character of eternity, to revolve upon itself and to end nowhere. If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others. If Scripture speaks to us of many ages, saying everywhere, age of age, and ages of ages, we do not see it enumerate them as first, second, and third. It follows that we are hereby shown not so much limits, ends and succession of ages, as distinctions between various states and modes of action."

If you look at this and other citations the books of Hexaermeron what you start to realize is this poetry about God.

St. Ambrose's Hexaermeron has the same kind of examples. People weren't so interested in creationism back then this wasn't the purpose of these works.

[I missed answering about ecumenical council : not directly, except for those accepting Vatican II and §3 of Dei Verbum, but indirectly at Trent via de facto consensus of Church Fathers.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ignatius of Antioch "not everything the Church Fathers was dogma and there is no universal consensus on the issue."

Sorry, you are wrong. There is no consensus on literal six days, but there is negative consensus of six days not being millions of years long and very positive consensus of history since Adam being within the Biblical timeframe (or within at least one of the Biblical timeframes, depending on text version).

"Even your best sources have signs that they didn't believe in Creationism."

No, you got that wrong.

"St Augustine clearly wasn't a Creationist but believed in an allegorical view as did Origen and Philo the Jew who probably became a Christian from sources and he was seen as a good source from the Fathers."

I am sorry, but all believed a literal and an allegorical view. Like Eve was literally taken from Adam's side, and allegorically signifies Church born from Christ on the Cross, the lance wound.

"St.Augustine believed that creation was using a the symbol of a perfect number 6 and then capping the tabernacle on the seventh and believed that creation was instantaneous but was unsure about that part."

Yes, instantaneous. That's shorter than six literal days, not millions of years longer.

Note, a symbolic way of expression doesn't alway mean sensus allegoricus, but the part of Creationism he would disagree with is "six litteral days" and not "thousands, not millions of years".

"Also, Pope Pius IX wrote that Genesis was Epic Poetry to refute pagan mythology and establish God about the pagan gods they were about in the ancient world."

Where exactly so? You mean Pio Nono, the one who held a Council that was interrupted by the invasion by Italy, right?

"Pope Francis and John Paul II were both pro-evolution with Francis saying it a fact."

You can add "Benedict" between them. BUT this means, none of these three were Popes.

Now, these are not Church Fathers, these are men judged BY the Church Fathers, where they are unanimous.

"Such is also the character of eternity, to revolve upon itself and to end nowhere. If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity."

Day one, 5199 years before Christ was born (give and take some) has a relation with eternity. THis does NOT mean a relation with millions of years, since millions of years are, fictive, so far, but still in the category of time and not of eternity.

"If you look at this and other citations the books of Hexaermeron what you start to realize is this poetry about God."

I am sorry, but your reading "poetry" is simply because these men were trained rhetors and not scholastics. They did not just want to state a truth, but to state it in a fine way.

So, no, it is not "poetry" as you understand the word. It is still a statement of fact.

"St. Ambrose's Hexaermeron has the same kind of examples."

As St. Basil's? Well, they are definitely not providing an exception from six days not extending to millions of years. Neither "eternity" of St. Basil, nor "not in time" by Origen if it wasn't Philo, can be taken to support millions of years.

"People weren't so interested in creationism back then this wasn't the purpose of these works."

Even so, they show a consensus on creationism. St. Augustine's instantaneous creation of everything underlines and doesn't undermine that each thing was created instantaneously, not gradually over long periods of time.

As to "they were not interested in" and "that was not the purpose" you are showing a very curious degree of perfect empathy with people long since having died and whose work on the face of it show the opposite, unless you twist words, like you just did with "eternity" and "millions of years".

Ignatius of Antioch

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Already in just what I cited you'r incorrect mentioning something when referencing scripture isn't proof that it occurred. The Fathers wrote in a different genre then being literal not poetry. Also you probably have read books with spurious quotes or citations out of context. The age of the earth was mostly based off a six millennium prophecy that failed. It was a different pope so your narrative fails are you a Sede? Pope Pius XII writes in Humani Generis section 38 says,

“Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.”

He says prior to that in 32

“How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.”

ENCYCLICAL HUMANI GENERIS
http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ignatius of Antioch "Already in just what I cited you'r incorrect mentioning something when referencing scripture isn't proof that it occurred."

It is. See St. Thomas. You deny Abraham had his second son at 100 without knowledge of Genesis 18-20, you are not heretic, you do so with that knowledge, you are outside the faith.

"The Fathers wrote in a different genre then being literal not poetry."

I am sorry, you are again confusing fine rhetoric and acknowledging some words being used in non-literal sense, with "poetry as pure metaphor" which is not a good definition of poetry.

And obviously, the fathers did write in the genre of being litteral, like someone literally denied and St. Augustine literally affirmed that - say, Baptism of Flame or of Breath is possible (often called Baptism of Desire).

That's not "poetry" for desiring baptism and intending to get it is a fine beginning, but Feeneyism still holds.

| Meaning : it is literal statement for desiring baptism and intending to get it may mean you are already justified, and in some cases can go to heaven if dead before baptism : Feeneyism does not hold. |

"Also you probably"

From what probability?

"have read books with spurious quotes or citations out of context."

Like Origen or Philo himself? Like going through De Genesi ad litteram, book V in the end portion and book VI in the beginning portion, after which St. Augustine says that believing six literal days is not very subtle but good enough for beginners? I mean, after those chapters, I should be well qualified to state that St. Augustine was promoting a one-moment creationism, not a six-literal-days one, but much less a "several long ages" one.

"The age of the earth was mostly based off a six millennium prophecy that failed."

In polemics with Masoretic text which had a different age, namely shorter.

"It was a different pope so your narrative fails are you a Sede?"

I am Conclavist and accept Pope Michael.

"Pope Pius XII writes in Humani Generis section 38 says,"

// “Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.” He says prior to that in 32 “How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.” //

ENCYCLICAL HUMANI GENERIS
http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Yes, are you able to analyse that statement correctly? NOTHING in it states that Genesis is "poetry as opposed to fact" for instance.

He may have been in that paragraph unjust to Homer and to Virgil, but he was not directly sharing your injustice to litteral truth of Moses' account. Get a grip on grammar before starting to cite things you haven't read.

Ignatius of Antioch

​@Hans-Georg Lundahl that statement with reasonable reading doesn't support it being a fact it says it is a myth. However, Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis addressed this saying "God doesn't have a magic wand" and "evolution is true."

In my Church, Thomas Aquinas isn't a saint and saints can be wrong like St. Augustine a Faher of the Church who said babies are transmitted sin from their parent's sex act at conception which violates Ezekial 18:20 and other passages. St. Augustine didn't say in the of his life what the days meant he said he was unsure what it meant.

However, there really isn't anything in the full context in the Fathers that supports creationism that really started with Martin Luther ut wasn't taken seriously by most.

Trying to age the earth with the Bible was done first by James Ussher.

Creationism really became popular after Ellen White pushed for it because of a vision. Then Millerite Baptists who still followed her took the idea. The people set laws mostly in the South were Millterites and that caused the Scopes trials. Then in the 1960s books started to come out and people like Billy Graham who letter rejected the idea and Jerry Falwell promoted the books. This caused them to be popular in the Jesus Movement.

Creationism has no theological purpose what so ever it doesn't tell you the nature or essence of God or anything about how to live or salvation. It is not necessary to any aspect of theology it is just a product of biblical literalism.

The Bible says it is mythology! Psalm 78:2" I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old,(mythology)"

Ron Aller

@Ignatius of Antioch Here is the Definition of Church History . “The Interpreted and integrated record of the origin, progress, and impact of Christianity upon human society based upon original data collected by reasonably, well-applied scientific methods from archeological, documentary, and/or living sources that must ALWAYS be ultimately subjected to "BIBLICAL AUTHORITY.”

The definition of Church in the NT is an "assembly of believers" has absolutely no connection to the RCC.

Ignatius of Antioch

@Ron Aller That maybe your definition but Church and history are two words one being the Church and the other being history. The argument you will make with that is circular reasoning since the Bible is a product of Church history, not the other way around. Also, the Orthodox and Catholic Church don't claim that teaching of tradition goes against scripture but that both have to be harmony and they are both fully authority. In fact, the position is that dogma is from Jesus' mouth through tradition. Now the bar of teachings of the Church Fathers to become dogma is a really high one. Most of what they say isn't dogma and they never disagree on defined dogma from the Ecumenical Councils.

Ron Aller

The remnant is certainly not the RCC here is short discourse on the unbiblical hearsay that many of the early church fathers developed and why.

There is no ISOLATED theological category – all is interconnected. Much like the different systems of the human body inter-relate to one another, so systematic theological categories are inter-related. Thus, Soteriology inter-connects to other categories.

Bibliology, (Study of the Word of God) Ecclesiology (The Study of the Church "Assembly of Believers") and Eschatology (End Times) are very inter-related to Soteriology (The Study of Salvation)

Here’s a little survey of that inter-relationship.

Bibliology (Study of The Word of God)

This is really another whole subject, but it is important to remind ourselves of the dangers that the Early Church Fathers fell into when they began to ‘depart’ from the clear, straightforward teachings of the BIBLE and opt for ideas that they deemed more ‘palatable’ to themselves.

EARLY in Church History, several of the Early Church Fathers began to “ALLEGORIZE” key passages of Scripture. This was born in the context of persecution of Christians in the 1st and 2nd Centuries. Of course, it began when the JEWS persecuted the Apostles and the first believers in Jesus, The Christ. This was Ethnic Jews persecuting Ethnic Jews because they believed Jesus was the Messiah – the Son of God. NOTE this quote from Reynold Showers as he quotes historian Kenneth Scott Latourette: “The rejection of Jesus as the Messiah by the majority of the Jews at the time ‘had consequences of major importance for both Christianity and Judaism.’ As Christianity became more predominantly Gentile in membership, it began to change significantly in contrast to what it was when mainly Jewish. Within one hundred years after the apostles of Jesus Christ were gone, the ‘majority of Gentile Christians regarded the Jewish Scriptures as authoritative’ but began to think ‘of themselves as the true spiritual heirs of Israel’ and ‘claimed of themselves the promises which the Hebrews held that Yahweh had made to them’.” (Renald Showers – The Coming Apocalypse: A Study of Replacement Theology Vs. God’s Faithfulness in the End Times – Published by Friends of Israel, Belware, NJ, P. 9) Then with the ministry of the Apostle Paul and the Gospel going to the GENTILES – the Early Church eventually became more “Gentile” than “Jewish”. The Jews (as a whole rejected the Gospel) and the Gentiles became “prominent” in the Early Church. With Roman Emperor CONSTANTINE, ‘Gentile Christianity’ BECAME DOMINANT the world. Hence The Roman Catholic Church was ‘born’.

****See Survey of Church History below for some specifics

A direct LINE can be drawn in Church History from the Early Church Fathers who began to “ALLEGORIZE” the Scriptures through Origen, Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church. This line connects the “DOTS” (individuals, movements, etc.) of Church History. Another quote from Showers’ book - he quotes Adolf Harnack in this quote: “According to Adolf Harnack, ‘The Christians held that the Jews having been rejected by God, they themselves had become the chosen people.’ In other words, they claimed that God permanently ended Israel’s unique relationship with Him as a nation and replaced it with the church as His unique people. Thus, the Christians were now the Israel of God.” (Showers, p. 9) These “dots” of Church History provide a direct line of History of ALLEGORIZATION OF THE SCRIPTURES – through Roman Catholic Church History, through the Reformation (which did PROVIDE a distinct departure from Allegorization in some very important ways – i.e. William Tyndale & John Wycliffe), through the various streams of church traditions from Reformation Europe and finally through the transportation of the various ‘strains’ of European belief systems about the Scriptures to America and around the World. Thus, today we have a vast majority of “Christians” in the world who know nothing OTHER than ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION of much of the Word of God.”.

Ecclesiology (The Doctrine of the Church) "Assembly of Believers"

With the allegorization of the Scriptures came doctrinal heresies that became central to ‘standardized doctrinal beliefs’ for thousands of years – to this very day. Some of those heresies were related to “Ecclesiology” Again, this is another subject, but it is important to summarize the heretical departures that came relatively early in Church History (by ‘relatively early’ we are talking in the range of 150-200 years). . Early Church Fathers began to think of themselves in terms of Israel’s Priesthood. The NEW TESTAMENT gave the proper names and roles of Church leaders (Elders, Pastors, Deacons, etc.) but the Early Church Fathers began to adopt for themselves the terms of the OT Israelite Priesthood – Thus their “Leaders were ‘Levitical’ Priests (RCC to this day does not have “Pastors” but “Priests”) and the church hierarchy goes all the way to the Jewish “HIGH PRIEST” (which is the RCC POPE). And it didn’t end there. The Jewish OT Law system involved “blood sacrifices” and the Early Church Fathers didn’t take very long before they had progressively transformed the BIBLICAL COMMANDS TO REMEMBER CHRIST’S SACRIFICIAL DEATH in the COMMUNION SERVICE/CELEBRATION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER into a CONTINUATION OF THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM – where the PRIEST transformed the Bread and the Cup of the Memorial Service into a heretical TRANSUBSTANTIATION of these two memorial elements into the actual body and blood of Christ – whom they continue to SACRIFICE on a weekly basis to this very day!!! HORRIBLE HERESY!! This is not only unbiblical but completely ANTI-BIBLICAL. Jesus Cried from the CROSS – “IT IS FINISHED”. The writer to the HEBREWS said that JESUS’ sacrificial death was “ONCE FOR ALL”.

Eschatology (End Times)

This again, is clearly another entire 'SUBJECT ".

Eschatology is SO LINKED to every other area of biblical theology. Obviously since our GOD is WHO HE IS, the consistency and the inter-relationships across the spectrum of theology is going to be obvious. The Early Fathers of the Church had made the colossal error of becoming highly anti-Semitic, rejecting ethnic Jews but embracing for themselves what were clearly promises that YHWH had made to the JEWS. Thus, they were ‘ripe’ for “anti-Chiliasm” (‘against 1000 years’ or rejecting the idea of a 1000 Year Kingdom on earth) because it involved too much of the OT being understood in relationship to the JEWS. Besides all that, there was of course a very strong “TEMPTATION” component where-in Satan and the forces of Evil were determined to steer the Church away from BIBLICAL TEACHINGS and into 1000 years of virtual darkness (regarding solid biblical teaching). It was only around the time of the Reformation that there began a whole new movement of getting the BIBLE into the hands of PEOPLE – people who would read it and understand again what the Scriptures are teaching. It is in that context that Dispensationalism and Premillennialism re-emerged into the forefront of Christianity.

@Ignatius of Antioch continued...

Historical Survey Early Church.

Justin Martyr – (100-165AD) – This man – as can be seen – is one of the most trusted and earliest of the Church Fathers. He fiercely defended Christianity against heretics. HOWEVER, he asserted in his writings that the biblical term “seed of Jacob” must be properly understood to refer to Christians and NOT JEWS. AS can be seen, this dear man had a lot of GOOD DOCTRINE but every early these anti-Semitic, heretical ideas were beginning to be embraced.

Tertullian – (160-220 AD) – this Early Church Father was a very prominent and “orthodox” leader of the Early Church. He was the BISHOP of the Church in North Africa. But in AD 200, he wrote an extremely anti-Semitic work called “An Answer to The Jews”. In this work he taught that the early Jewish Twins, Esau and Jacob, represented God’s view of Jews and Gentiles. He taught that Esau represented the Jews (who lost their birthright) and Jacob represented Christians who now OWN the birthright as God’s people. Jews NOW SERVE Christians was Tertullian’s conclusion.

Origen (185-254 AD) – this man – MORE THAN ANY OTHER EARLY CHURCH FATHER – is responsible for the church’s embrace of ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE and a host of resulting heresies and distortions of Bible teaching and doctrine. Origen was the President of the highly INFLUENTIAL School of Theology in Alexandria, Egypt. Origen was extremely prolific, highly skilled and brilliant in his writing, very persuasive in his teaching and PROFOUNDLY WRONG in his ideas. HE ALLEGORIZED the ENTIRE BIBLE – TOTALLY REJECTING literal, grammatical, historical, common sense reading of the BIBLE. This ONE ERROR allowed Origen to believe and teach that “WHATEVER” he believed or ‘wanted’ the Scriptures to say, they “do say”. If he wanted “Israel” to mean “church” (which he did) then he could/would make it mean that (legitimately in his own mind). This ONE ERROR led Origen into numerous heretical doctrines – he did not believe in a “physical resurrection of the dead” and he was a “Universalist” regarding eternal salvation for all human being – AS WELL AS FALLEN ANGELS. Hard to believe but his “belief in allegorizing the Scriptures” led him into many heresies. And since he was SO INFLUENTIAL and PROLIFIC, he “SHAPED” the future of CHURCH DOCTRINE (Augustine was a highly committed student of Origen’s writings and teachings). Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church) wrote of Origen, “His great defect is the neglect of the grammatical and historical sense and his constant desire to find hidden mystic meaning…. His allegorical interpretation is ingenious, but often runs far away from the text and degenerates into the merest caprice.” (V. 2, p. 791).

Dionysius – (190-264 AD) – this man was a highly influential bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, who along with Origen authoritatively and officially declared: “the allegorical interpretation of the prophets as the only legitimate exegesis.”.

Cyprian – (195-258 AD) – He was the Bishop of Carthage. He wrote a series of books titled “Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews”. In this work he (according to Roberts & Donaldson in “Ante-Nicene Fathers”) “endeavored to show that the Jews, according to what had before been foretold, had departed from God, and had lost God’s favour, which had been given them in past times, and had been promised them for the future; while the Christians had succeeded to their place, deserving well of the Lord by faith, and coming out of all nations and from the whole world.” And like Tertullian he too promoted the idea that JACOB & ESAU represent respectively Christians and Jews – and the idea that the Jews have lost their place in God’s program and all God’s promises to Israel are now resident and fulfilled in the CHURCH. This is not full-blown “Replacement Theology” yet but as the centuries progressed it became FULL-BLOWN to the point of what we now have today. Ambrose – (340-397 AD) – Ambrose was one of the most influential people in the Early Church. He was actually the man who baptized and mentored Augustine. There are few individuals who had a greater effect on the formation of “CHURCH DOCTRINE”. But Ambrose regarded the Jewish soul as “irrevocably perverse and incapable of any good thought” and he asserted that “burning a Jewish Synagogue was not a crime.” This is the kind of thinking that PERMEATED the Church in these centuries.

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) – this man was probably the GREATEST & MOST RENOWNED PREACHER in the Early Church. One of his most wellknown & highly respected works was a series of sermons that were titled “Against the Jews” in which he supported, expanded and continued the anti-Semitism of the earlier fathers. The uniqueness of this series is that it was preached in ANTIOCH OF SYRIA rather than in Alexandria, Egypt. Antioch of Syria was the considered THE “stronghold” of ORTHODOXY and literal hermeneutic in the Early Church. But it is obvious that as the years progressed, allegorical interpretation had ‘infiltrated’ and permeated everywhere in the church. IT IS IMPORTANT TO STATE AT THIS POINT that while this ANTISEMITISM was rampant in the Early Church, and allegorization of the Scriptures was a widespread BELIEF and PRACTICE, there was still some semblance of maintaining an ‘unencumbered’ and ‘free grace’ Gospel. That was about to change dramatically. And Augustine was the man who was highly influential in that change.

Augustine & Middle Ages (Augustine – 354-430 AD) Chapter 2 of “A Defense of Free Grace Theology” by Ken Wilson is primarily a study of the life and teachings of Augustine. This chapter is written in a very scholarly way (it is a summation of Wilson’s PhD dissertation (they call it a Thesis in England) at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. His “dissertation/thesis” was titled: “Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to ‘Non-Free Will’”! Wilson is without doubt one of the world’s leading experts in the Soteriology of Augustine – early in his life and how that changed during the course of his life. This chapter, while it is not easy reading, is a well written and highly informative source of carefully researched material on Augustine and thus how the biblical concept of FREE GRACE was ‘lost’ to the major public Church, namely the Roman Catholic Church. For more than 1000 years, until the Reformation, the RCC as the ‘voice and keeper’ of Christianity and the Bible throughout the civilized world, perverted the Gospel of the Free Grace of God offered to anyone and everyone who would believe in Jesus, The Christ. This chapter traces the early Augustine (who believed much of the traditional and orthodox doctrine of the Free will and Free choice of anyone to believe in Christ) and his dramatic rejection of those early orthodox beliefs. Later in his Christian life, he embraced many pagan ideas that were prominent and prevalent in the culture of the day (and that which Augustine had believed throughout his life until his conversion to faith in Christ in 386 AD at a little over 30 years of age). In fact, Wilson makes this very significant declaration: “Augustine was the only major Christian figure in history who was a serious disciple of all three highly deterministic pagan systems – Manichaeism (Gnosticism), Stoicism, and Neoplatonism. All other prior Christian Bishops and Authors rejected pagan determinism as Fergusson explained.” (Defense of FGT, p. 61). Augustine had lived a very immoral lifestyle and apparently continued to struggle with sexual temptation throughout his life. But all this had a major impact on Augustine’s theological belief system and the changes that occurred in his theology. . What is particularly “STRIKING” about this impressive chapter is Wilson’s carefully developed assertion that Augustine had ALL FIVE of CALVINISM’S ‘TULIP’ in his theological system. Again, a quote from Wilson is in order: “Augustine’s five points of total inability, unconditional election, limited atonement, ‘irresistible grace’ and perseverance are now recognized as the TULIP of Calvinism. Thus, Augustine was the inventor of the five points of Calvinism… Both Luther and Calvin mistakenly believed that Augustine was merely teaching what all of the other church fathers has taught. But, in fact, Augustine himself admitted that he had tried but failed to continue the Christian doctrine of free will of the first four centuries. He consistently utilized the same Christian terms but inserted new meanings into those terms.” (Defense of FGT, pp. 47-48).. There is a very interesting section of Wilson’s chapter wherein Wilson anchors Augustine’s theological changes to his struggle with finding any biblical basis for INFANT BAPTISM (then called Paedobaptism). It was THIS UNBIBLICAL and FOOLISH PRACTICE that had become SO FOUNDATIONAL TO RCC LIFE that drove Augustine to heresy in trying to defend it. It trying to find some ‘logical’ and/or ‘biblical’ foundations for this unholy practice, his effort to do so drove him to ‘rethink’ his entire understanding of biblical teachings and as a result he ended up embracing completely heretical ideas. And it was those heretical doctrinal conclusions that became the fundamental doctrine of the RCC going forward. And of course, these ideas and beliefs continued into the Reformation and even AFTER IT because both Martin Luther and John Calvin embraced Augustine’s theology.

@Ignatius of Antioch continued...Reformation

Of course, we have just acknowledged that both Martin Luther and John Calvin – and thus their ‘WINGS’ of the Reformation did NOT depart from Augustinian theology. Thus, while they did affirm many good things and while they did “lead a reform” of many of the RCC heresies and abuses, they continued and perpetuated many of the heresies Augustine embraced. Fortunately, the REFORMATION did make ONE VERY MAJOR CHANGE to the stranglehold of the RCC over peoples’ lives. That major change was to put the SCRIPTURES INTO THE HANDS of the COMMON PERSON. With that access, major challenges to the heresies and the abuses of the RCC began to be exposed and progressively, in the Post-Reformation Era, MANY BIBLICAL SCHOLARS & STUDENTS AROSE who began to preach and teach the truth of the SCRIPTURES.

Post-Reformation

Grant Hawley has written a very interesting little book titled: “Dispensationalism and Free Grace”. In this little book he defines and describes the LINKAGE between Dispensationalism and Free Grace. This linkage can be seen quite clearly in the history of the Church. Augustine is the classic example. While he was rejecting FREE GRACE, he was also rejecting Premillennialism. Allegorizing of the Scripture is required for both destructive directions – Lordship Salvation and Amillennialism.

The Post-Reformation era saw the rise and resurgence of Biblical Dispensationalism and Free Grace theology. That they are linked becomes evident as one studies the movements of each theological development. Present (especially in the USA). The LINKAGE of FREE GRACE THEOLOGY and DISPENSATIONALISM becomes very clear as one looks around at the theological landscape.

@Ignatius of Antioch

There are basically two primary approaches to “Hermeneutics” – The Literal (grammatical, historical, contextual) Hermeneutic and The Allegorical (nonliteral, ‘spiritualized’, fanciful, unconcerned about ‘understanding’ authorial intent or context) Hermeneutic. The Allegorical method presumes (very wrongly) that the meaning of the text is NOT IN the WORDS of the text BUT is BEHIND the Words of the text. In other words, for ‘allegorists’ the “meaning” is NOT determined by what is written but by what the interpreter “sees” or “thinks” when he/she reads the words. For those who ‘believe in’ the Allegorical method, one person’s interpretation is as valid as another person’s interpretation – even if they are mutually exclusive or contradictory. THUS, for those holding to the Allegorical method, the BIBLE is NOT GOD’S WORD – given by GOD as HIS MESSAGE TO HUMANKIND. If the BIBLE can legitimately mean different things to different people – then the BIBLE has no meaning in and of itself. IT IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD it is actually the word of whomever the interpreter happens to be. It is UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS and yet the vast majority of people – even those who say they believe the BIBLE is the WORD OF GOD – use the ‘Allegorical method’ in their biblical interpretation.

@Ignatius of Antioch
THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE TO LEARN WHEN STUDYING THE BIBLE

The PRINCIPLE STATED: “The MEANING OF WORDS is determined by THE CONTEXT – CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!!!!”. IT IS profoundly important in ALL BIBLE STUDY – BUT seen to be of PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANCE in this.... MANY WORDS that are commonly used – words like “saved”, “lost” and even “justification” have different meaning depending on the context in which it is used. YOU MUST NOT – YOU MUST NOT – think that words ALWAYS MEAN a certain thing – even when used in different contexts. Perhaps it is better to say it this way: “Words have meaning, but their meaning is determined by a context in which they are used. The classic example I like to use is the word “TRUNK”. “Trunk” is an OBJECT. It is either the ‘nose’ of an elephant, the main upright stem of a tree, the rear part of a sedan/car, a rectangular box often found in an attic with ‘old things’ stored in it, OR it can also be used of a “main line” on which railroad cars roll. So, what does the word “Trunk” mean? Well, it does legitimately mean a number of different things and the only way to know which meaning is intended is by the context in which it is used. The word “saved” (Greek word “sodzow” – σοζω) as it occurs in the BIBLE is a word that is much like the English word “Trunk”. It means ‘delivered from eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire, healed of a particular disease or handicap, set free from demonization, spared from death, no longer in danger from some kind of enemy, etc. It always carries with it some kind of ‘good’ that has come to a person and some kind of ‘bad’ that is no longer a matter of concern. BUT you cannot know “WHAT IT MEANS” without studying the context in which the word occurs. BUT A VERY HUGE CONSIDERATION with regard to this particular word is that it is far more commonly used to refer to things OTHER than “delivered from eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire”. BUT MOST CHRISTIANS see the word “saved” in their Bible and IMMEDIATELY think it means that. HUGE MISTAKE! The basis of MANY WRONG INTERPRETATIONS!!! (NOTE HERE: As important as this point is – it is also very important to realize that writers of commentaries, Bible study books, Preachers, and EVEN THOSE WHO HAVE PRODUCED THE LEXICONS and GREEK AND HEBREW STUDY AIDS, HAVE ALSO BEEN MAKING THIS SAME ERROR FOR CENTURIES. SO, just because you see it in a book (commentary or even lexicon) it is absolutely PARAMOUNT that YOU VERIFY by your own STUDY OF THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE WHAT the CONTEXT is saying so that you can understand what the word means in its CONTEXT!!)

@Ignatius of Antioch Literal Interpretation of Scripture LEADS to A PREMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY. Allegorical Interpretation of Scripture has resulted in AMILLENNIALISM (AntiChiliasm) and POSTMILLENNIALISM (among many other ‘heresies’) that have resulted from improper and inaccurate handling (“wrongly dividing” – 2 Timothy 2:15) of the WORD OF TRUTH. The Old Testament, Our Lord Jesus, The Apostles, The New Testament (especially the Book of Revelation) and The Early Church were ALL PREMILLENNIAL!!. Anti-Chiliasm (rejection of the idea of a 1000 Year Kingdom/Reign of Christ on earth) ‘began’ – probably with Gnosticism but was formulated and organized as a way of thinking and believing in the ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL of biblical interpretation. Especially important in this discussion is Origen (184-253 A.D.) and the Allegorical Interpretation (he called it ‘spiritualization’) of the Scriptures. (Origen was a very prolific writer – producing massive amounts of biblical commentary and theological studies – highly influential and yet very controversial even in his own day. BUT he was incredibly effective in not only developing the allegorical interpretation of the Bible but arguing for it being the correct and only way to interpret the Scriptures. It was ALL SHROUDED in the idea of it being MORE “SPIRITUAL” to interpret the Bible in this manner. BUT Origen was himself VERY, VERY CONFUSED in terms of his own Eschatology. His own writings are filled with conflicting ideas.). One of the great tragedies of Church History is the fact that Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) followed Origen in both his ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures and in his ANTI-CHILIASM. Augustine had many admirable qualities and had a good deal of orthodoxy in his theology but in several absolutely fundamental and crucial areas of Bible Interpretation and Theology, he was completely heretical. And it is very important to know that Augustine is the FATHER of ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. Knowing and understanding the ideas, theology and historical significance of Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo explains to a great degree the ‘heretical’ biblical and theological foundations of the Roman Catholic Church. AND when one also recognizes that while the REFORMERS finally BROKE with the RCC in areas of BIBLIOLOGY (the BIBLE can be read & UNDERSTOOD by all people – not just the Clergy) and Soteriology (Eternal Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone) and Ecclesiology (The “Church” is all believers not the RCC Hierarchy and there is no such thing as “Apostolic Succession” in the Papacy) – THE REFORMATION DID NOTHING to break away from RCC ESCHATOLOGY!!!!

Ignatius of Antioch

@Ron Aller Your wrong about allegorical being the only other usage and each genre has to be read that way. Most of the Old Testament is epic poetry which is different than allegory other sometimes there are things like that. The scholarly consensus is that much of the old testament is epic poetry and fact-based narratives didn't even exist before Herodotus. You can check out Dr. John Walton (old testament scholar), Dr. Michael Heist (old testament scholar), Dr. Michael Heiser (old testament scholar), Dr. Peter Enns (Old Testament and Ancient Near East scholar), Dr. Bruce Waltke (old testament scholar and number 3 Hebracist in the world), Ben Stanhope (old testament scholar) and countless others and the general consensus of scholarship agree with this. The cosmology and stories match that of much older stories of the Ancient Near East and are refutation of them and retold to show God's greatness and teach spiritual lessons.

@Ron Aller From a standpoint of Genesis let's see what scripture tells us how the authors understood "raqia" or firmament. Then let's see from the source what it means and then see what the ancient Hebrew sources and some mythology says. Is what you read possible? Job 37:18 "Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?" Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened." Genesis 8:2 "The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained," Nore in Genesis 7:24 it says the waters came down for 150 days and can't be meaning standing water because Genesis 8:2 is when the windows closed and the water stops. Genesis 7:12 says it rained for 40 days which shows that it can't be factual these numbers are symbolic. Isaiah 24:18 "He who flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit, and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble." Note there are foundations and windows still after the flood. Psalm 148:3-4 "Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! 4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!" Joshua 10:12 "...sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies." Not the sun is moving around the earth creating days instead of the other way around and the sun and moon are at locations in the earth. Isaiah 66:1 "Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?" Job 38:14 "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment." Do seals pressed on clay make spheres? Genesis 1:15-17 "And let them be for lights (stars) in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light (sun) to rule the day, and the lesser light (moon) to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,." Genesis 1:6 "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Psalms 78:2: “I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old (mythology).” Midrash Tanchuma, Shoftim 11:1 says, "Abram and Sarai would not have a child. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do for them? Rabbi Yehudah beRabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Chanin, "It is written (Genesis 15:5), 'And He took him outside and said, "Observe towards the heavens."' He raised him above the dome of the firmament (raqia)." Shaar HaEmunah Ve'Yesod HaChassidut, Introduction to Beit Yaakov 13:6 says, "This means the God raised Abraham above the dome of the firmament so that all the goodness he receives will come directly from God.” Or HaChaim on Genesis 1:15:2 says, "And according to the words of the Sages (Chagigah 12:), of blessed memory, that the stars are in the second firmament, the stars only break through the first firmament and the firmament shines upon the earth." 3 Baruch 3:5-8 "the angel: I pray thee, Lord, say to me who are these. And he said, These are they who gave counsel to build the tower, for they whom thou seest drove forth multitudes of both men and women, to make bricks; among whom, a woman making bricks was not allowed to be released in the hour of child-birth, but brought forth while she was making bricks, and carried her child in her apron, and 6 continued to make bricks. And the Lord appeared to them and confused their speech, when they 7 had built the tower to the height of four hundred and sixty-three cubits. And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heaven, saying, Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of 8 brass, or of iron. When God saw this He did not permit them, but smote them with blindness and confusion of speech, and rendered them as thou seest." Josephus said, "After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts; and he determined it should stand by it self. He also placed a cristalline [firmament] round it; and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth; and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews. (The Antiquities of the Jews — Book 1, Chapter 1) The 1st-century Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria said, "The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Reason; and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it; and the first portion of it, being also the most excellent of all made by the Creator, was the heaven, which he truly called the firmament, as being corporeal; for the body is by nature firm, inasmuch as it is divisible into three parts; and what other idea of solidity and of body can there be, except that it is something which may be measured in every direction? therefore he, very naturally contrasting that which was perceptible to the external senses, and corporeal with that which was perceptible only by the intellect and incorporeal, called this the firmament." (On The Creation, chapter 10) Google image search Egyptian firmament they took that like other things from the Sumerians who wrote Enuma Elish which says, "The Great Abode, Esharra, which he made as the firmament. Anu, Enlil, and Ea he made occupy their places. Marduk puts the heavens in order, establishing the zodiac and telling the moon how to shine." You will note the Egyptian moon god and sun god are in boats in their depiction above the dome to move the sun and moon. Philo of Alexandria (1st century), Origen (3rd century), St. Augustine (4th and 5th century) and Pope Pius XII all said that Genesis was mythological. Pope Pius XII points out the way they were retold through the Old Testament was a refutation as a careful reading of the mythology and the changes indicate. God being put over the waters where their gods lived then demonstrates this as does how the Nephilim or Apkallu are portrayed. This doesn't prove or disprove theism it just shows that they used object lessons before Herodotus invented fact-based narratives. To this day people learn from object lessons, expressions, and illustrations that didn't happen and when people use them they're not lying. The Old Testament is largely epic poetry.

@Ron Aller Your whole concept of grace is a concept Augustine later rejected and you get it from him. In addition, they followed young Augustine, not the wiser one who rejected those ideas. There are many things you believe if you believe any of the 5 Sola's you accept some parts of Calvinism whether you realize it or not. I am firm with these things I taught apologetics as a Baptist at a college.

Ron Aller

@Ignatius of Antioch Augustine of Hippo's Traditional Theology AD 386-411

As a young man Augustine was trained as a rhetorician and adhered to three highly deterministic philosophies-Stoicism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism. He spent ten years as a hearer in the heretical Manichaeism religion. Manichean was the the pinnacle of Gnosticism. It taught that the physical body was evil and the spirit was good, so that even the birth of a child was sin. Persons who unilaterally pre-determinism before birth by the good god(who did not create physical matter) to be either elect or damned independently of human choice-Divine Unilateral Pre-determinism of individuals.

Augustine was baptised into Christianity in AD 386 by his spiritual father, Ambrose, bishop of Milan. He gradually moved from Neoplatonic and Manichean ideas to embrace the christian theology of his time. A decade later Augustine discovered God's grace apart from the merit of human works after reading the commentaries of Victorinus and then Jerome on Galatians. When he became co-bishop of Hippo, Augustine was teaching traditional theology against the Manichean heretics, as Christian leaders had taught for centuries against the Stoics and Gnostics. God's responses to humans and God's election to heavenly bliss were based upon God's "foreknowledge" of future human choices, not a unilateral and non-relational, pre-determinism (as in Augustine's prior Gnostic Manichaeism, Stoicism, and Neoplatonism). Augustine taught these traditional theologies defending human free choice and election based upon God's foreknowledge for over twenty-five years until AD 412.

AD 412

With the Infamous Pelagian controversy Augustine brought into Christianity the Manichean concepts of total inability (infants cannot make a choice) damnable sin at birth, and unconditional election (God chooses unilaterally). This logical deduction from infant baptism was then extrapolated to all humans. Note that the basis for this logical argument was the salvific power of water baptism for an infant combined with the Stoic philosophy of divine meticulous control of all events. NO prior extant Christian writings had taught any of these pagan ideas.

Ignatius of Antioch

@Ron Aller As to Justin Martyr that is accurate in that Israel now lives through the Church. As to Tertullian, I don't think you're painting that correctly read his works he was not a saint or Father of Church at best he s patristic writer who died an excommunicated heretic. He was talking about the Jews falling away and using an illustration. Origen was not a Father or saint either and his anathemas authenticity is debated. He got his ideas from the Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria where Origen was that lived in the 1st century before Josephus. Philo wrote whole books on allegorical interpretation and Origen got introduced to them by his teacher Clement of Alexandria. Cyprian was talking about the Jew's rejection of God which is apostasy if you deny the son you deny the Father. A lot of the Fathers were part Jewish and into the 4th century Christians often went to synagogue including these men. John Chrysostom refuted Augustine's earlier teachings. Ephesians 3:7-8 says that grace is "energeia" in Greek so grace as God is uncreated his his uncreated energies. Free grace is false as grace is not unmerited favor. The issue of infant baptism is pretty simple Colossians 2:11-12 says baptism is the new circumcision and Genesis and Leviticus say that occurs at 8 days. Acts 2:39-41 says baptism is a promise for you and your children and then to save yourselves by being baptized and 3000 were added through it. Conversion baptism comes from Judaism not just does the Talmud teach this it is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jews have always baptized infant converts because in Judaism the mikvah they get baptized in is he womb and they come out being born again into a Jew.

​@Ron Aller It is interesting you bring up the context when studying the Bible as you guys don't do that and then add to what it says and then read meanings into the text. I have now sent this article dealing with all major the faith alone proof texts and just some of the mountains teaching the opposite. Over 60 professors of theology and apologetics have been given it about 30 said they would get back to me in a couple of days. No one has been willing to address anything I showed. I don't think you can address it either! I normally don't read in English but Greek. http://wiredcommunity.weebly.com/articles/were-not-saved-by-faith-alone

@Ron Aller your premillennial ideas wouldn't exist if it were not for the 1800s and John Nelson Darby. You read through the lens of a man whether you will admit or not with a new theology. I have read the books who claim the Fathers were premillennial dispensationalists when I taught and have read what the cite. Some of it exists and other stuff does not. The main thing is it is all out of context or doesn't say what they have attributed to it.

@Ron Aller St. Augustine later rejected the idea of predestination as you put it this was written in 427 AD, "Now wherever it is said, Do not do this, and Do not do that, and wherever there is any requirement in the divine admonitions for the work of the will to do anything, or to refrain from doing anything, there is at once a sufficient proof of free will. No man, therefore, when he sins, can in his heart blame God for it, but every man must impute the fault to himself. Nor does it detract at all from a man's own will when he performs any act in accordance with God. Indeed, a work is then to be pronounced a good one when a person does it willingly; then, too, may the reward of a good work be hoped for from Him concerning whom it is written, He shall reward every man according to his works." (On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 4, Extract from the Retractions, Book 2, chapter 66). His fatalism was reverting to his old religion he was a pagan Manichean who studied philosophy before his conversion. He became a priest in 391 AD and the Bishop of Hippo in 397 AD.

Ron Aller

@Ignatius of Antioch The old testament is largely epic poetry...and "The Revelation" I assume is "The Idealist View" (Timeless Symbolic) which is purposefully allegorical in order to avoid the absolutely obvious problems with Revelation 20. This chapter SPECIFICALLY STATES SIX TIMES in rapid-fire succession that there will be a 1000-Year Long Kingdom of Rule by our Lord Jesus, The Christ – ON THE EARTH. This is a VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM for AMILLENNIALISTS. If it weren’t such a SERIOUS ASSAULT on the integrity of the SCRIPTURES, it would be comical to describe all the different attempts to explain away these verses and these 6 statements that the Kingdom of Christ on earth is a 1000-Year long, literal, earthly KingdomThe LITERAL METHOD is the only reasonable, appropriate and accurate way to approach and understand the marvelous body of truth that is the BIBLE – THE WORD OF GOD! YHWH chose to communicate HIMSELF and HIS DEALINGS WITH HUMAN BEINGS THROUGH THE AGES (up to 95 A.D. when the book of Revelation was written – the LAST PART OF THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD) in WRITTEN FORM. He not only is the AUTHOR of all 66 books of the BIBLE (utilizing human authors to say what He wanted said) but HE has clearly also PROTECTED, GUARDED and GUIDED the TRANSMISSION of the TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURES down through the ages of time – to this very day!!!

@Ignatius of Antioch It is true, in Acts 16 Paul baptized the entire household of the Roman jailer but verse 34 is most important; “having believed in God with all his household.” The entire household believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. All, men women, and children. Thus, all were baptized because they had believed. Belief should always precede baptism. The question of when baptism is correct or of wanton gain is not that of age, but must always be of confession of faith by the individual. If an infant were able to express their confession of faith in Jesus the Christ then by all means, baptize. Even at the most tender of age children can know they need Jesus and profess their belief in Jesus as the Son of God. This profession of faith is all that is needed for the transaction of salvation to occur. Once this transaction has occurred, we are commanded by Jesus to be baptized. Not as a means of the dispensation of grace, for this has already been dispensed (at faith). Not as a means of receiving the Holy Spirit, for we were sealed by Him at the moment of faith, forever and completely in regards to eternal security. Instead, in obedience to the Lord’s command and as a public profession of one’s faith, we baptize the believer according to the commands in Scripture.

Ignatius of Antioch

@Ron Aller not exactly in the Ancient Near East isn't based on things that occurred and the point of this type of epic poetry is to refute the ideas in other stories. If you want to believe in a 1000 year kingdom is literal you have to deal with an earlier chapter that said the earth was already destroyed, Peter said the heavens and earth would be destroyed and Jesus said in Matthew that the earth will be destroyed when he returns. Jesus said his kingdom wasn't earth and that he was making a place for us in heaven. 1 Corinthians 15 talks about the bodily resurrection, in the end, all the living and deceased saints going to have. Paul talks about the third heaven so one option is the new heaven and earth are the new place in heaven. How much of the Old Testament prophets occurred how people predicted them?

@Ron Aller now you're cursing yourself by changing the words of the book Acts 16 says "he believed" not all his household believed, "Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. " The rules in Greek making the possessive on him the New International Version, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, NET Bible, Young's Literal Translation and Revised Standard Version agree with me. The origin of your translation is the Geneva Bible which many Bibles like the AKJV modeled after. There are six household baptisms though so that is pointless. Also there 2 babies mentioned directly in the New Testament John the Baptist and Jesus. Babies couldn't talk so they weren't noteworthy as just a regular person.

Ron Aller

@Ignatius of Antioch A”-Millennialism simply believes that there will be NO LITERAL MILLENNIUM. The Lord, they believe is ruling now – in the hearts of men. The Kingdom is NOW and hence the common expression among Christians today, “let’s build the Kingdom” or “we’re building the Kingdom”. Most people simply mean that they think they are ‘doing God’s work’ but the expression is an Amillennialist one – wherein the belief is that the Kingdom is being expanded and grown in peoples’ hearts as they live the Christian life. Amillennialists allegorize virtually all prophetic passages in the Bible. They must ‘allegorize’ because the prophecies of Scripture, when and if they are taken at face value, unmistakably teach a future, literal, 1000-Year long, victorious, Rule and Reign by the LORD JESUS, THE CHRIST. Amillennialists have to believe that all of the promises to Israel in the OT are fulfilled in the Church. They must ‘see’ one ‘people of God’ – the Church is in the OT and the Nation of Israel and the ethnic Jews are not important since the Church began and thus are no longer significant in God’s plans and program in the future. They must believe and teach that the Church has “REPLACED” Israel and thus Amillennialism is often termed Replacement Theology

@Ignatius of Antioch Premillennialism is the specifically the belief that JESUS, THE CHRIST will return to the Earth – PRIOR TO THE 1000-YEAR KINGDOM – thus it is called “PREMILLENNIALISM”. Premillennialism is the understanding one gains of the Scriptures IF one does NOT “ALLEGORIZE” the text and simply reads and understands the BIBLE – and especially the prophetic passages of the BIBLE – “LITERALLY” one ends up being a Premillennialist! Even those who do not hold to Premillennialism admit that practicing a “literal hermeneutic” leads one to a Premillennial understanding of the Scriptures.

Give it try and you too will understand the full counsel of God.

Ignatius of Antioch

@Ron Aller let me ask you a question in the Bible why are 10 pre-flood genealogies and 10 post-flood genealogies? Was Jesus' name in the New Testament wrong was in Immanuel? Did Jesus set a literal empire? Jesus said before he left earth all in the Old Testament would be fulfilled. Now my Bible has some more books that answer how that happened and yours doesn't. The kingdom that is built is when they become a part of it in heaven. If you want to take things literal will all 300 sextillion stars almost all of which are many times bigger then the earth will they fall to it?

@Ron Aller the fact that Paul said not all of Israel is Israel and it is those who follow Christ that is, that the Church is grafted into Israel and that there is no distinction between Jews and gentiles shows the Church is Israel. The idea of Ezekiel and Daniel applying things ignores that they already took place. Ezekiel was writing about rebuilding the Temple when they returned from captivity the context proves that and the fact that it says very stone of ancient ruins would be rebuilt. Is Israel moving into king David's palace? They paved a parking lot over it.

Ron Aller

@Ignatius of Antioch The NT church taught Premillennialism even Augustine. You choose dismiss all future prophetic passages instead of carefully handling the interpretation of scripture correctly. I promise this will lead one to LOVE the WORD OF GOD and the GOD who gave it to us. The literal method of biblical interpretation will lead to a Free Grace soteriology and a Premillennial Eschatology (Including a Classic Dispensational form of Premillennialism). A major paradigm shift is definitely required on your part. However, when rightly dividing the Word of God and with the help of the Holy Spirit anything is possible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

​@Ignatius of Antioch Learn to read.

“Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures"

So: popular narrations may have been inserted in the Sacred Scriptures.

Is Paul Revere and the Minute Men a myth with no or only slight relation to fact?

No.

"must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things,"

As said, he may have been unjust to Aeneid, Iliad and Odyssey in the following, but he is NOT saying any popular narrations are as little factual as these, which include analyses where idols are described as actors, or for that matter as the clearly less factual myths in which Hercules delivers Alkestis from Thanatos, Theseus from Hades and mounts the Olympus.

On the contrary, he said the narrations of a popular type are NOT on par with these.

"which are more the product of an extravagant imagination"

This may be unjust to Virgil and Homer, but it is definitely justified about certain aspects of the Hercules myth and at least one aspect of the Perseus myth.

"than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.”

To both Homer and Herodotus. No, he was very definitely in paragraph 38 NOT saying there was "myth" in Genesis.

@Ignatius of Antioch §32 has nothing to do at all with considering any part of Genesis myth.

@Ignatius of Antioch "However, Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis addressed this saying "God doesn't have a magic wand" and "evolution is true.""

So? They are not my Church.

​@Ignatius of Antioch "In my Church, Thomas Aquinas isn't a saint"

"EO"?

"and saints can be wrong"

Some individually, not all collectively.

" like St. Augustine a Faher of the Church who said babies are transmitted sin from their parent's sex act at conception which violates Ezekial 18:20 and other passages."

It doesn't. Ezekiel 18:20 means I cannot be punished rightfully by men, or by God, because of any personal sin my father committed.

St. Augustine is talking of transmitting the sin of Adam. And Gregory Palamas agrees and says the Blessed Virgin is an exception from this.

"St. Augustine didn't say in the of his life what the days meant he said he was unsure what it meant."

It is possible he said that too somewhere, but all of his recorded positions very clearly exclude them meaning long ages.

AND not agreeing on six literal days makes him a minority among Church Fathers. Basil, Ambrose, lots of other saints were very fine with six literal days.

@Ignatius of Antioch "However, there really isn't anything in the full context in the Fathers that supports creationism that really started with Martin Luther ut wasn't taken seriously by most."

You are claiming "full context" with no proof. Show one single father who anywhere justifies the "full context" you attribute to him! Otherwise you are just bluffing. Or believing a starets who is bluffing and whom you should ditch for some more reliable one.

Martin Luther was as much a creationist as any other Catholic there and then while he was Catholic, and he remained so when becoming a Protestant. He definitely started nothing and the Catholic Church condemned nothing in his approach to historicity and literal factuality of Genesis. He was as Young Earth Creationist as Pope Leo X, who issued Exsurge Domine. Or as the fathers of the Council of Trent.

Check the Catechism for priests issued by that council.

@Ignatius of Antioch "Trying to age the earth with the Bible was done first by James Ussher."

Have you heard of Julius Africanus and St. Jerome?

Have you heard of George Syncellus?

Have you heard of the Roman Martyrology or of Historia Scholastica?

St. Jerome, based partly on Julius Africanus gave a timeframe which reappars in Historia Scholastica and then in Roman Martyrology from 1498 to present where Christ is born 5199 after Creation.

(Those accepting antipope Wojtyla would make that from 1498 to 1994, since Wojtyla "changed times" ...).

George Syncellus using another and more standard version of LXX for chapters 5 and 11 included the Second Cainan, and he also for other reasons had a longer chronology, Christ born 5508 or 5509 after Creation. It is liturgically mentioned, not at Christmas, but on september 1:st, if I recall the words of one Father Aristobule correctly.

The only little originality of Ussher was using instead a Masoretic chronology, as per Vulgate and King James, instead of a LXX one. Pretending he invented Biblical chronologies is preposterous.

@Ignatius of Antioch "Creationism really became popular after Ellen White pushed for it because of a vision. Then Millerite Baptists who still followed her took the idea"

This holds true only among Protestants where a majority at this time were starting to accept the chronology of the then modern Geology.

Your Church definitely had no non-Creationists back in the Czar's Russia or the Turks' Fanar.

And English speaking Catholics at this time often used a Bible commentary by F. George Leo Haydock.

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

This is from his comment to Genesis 3:
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml#navPoint_6

@Ignatius of Antioch "Creationism has no theological purpose what so ever it doesn't tell you the nature or essence of God or anything about how to live or salvation. It is not necessary to any aspect of theology it is just a product of biblical literalism."

Again, you are missing all the Fathers (not just St. Augustine) were Biblical literalists.

It serves the purpose of underligning God is truth, the Holy Spirit has spoken through the prophets, and the Church is indefectible.

"The Bible says it is mythology! Psalm 78:2 " I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old," "

The words in the actual psalm do not include your parenthesis "(mythology)"

Riddles and enigmatic words are not the same things as myths, definitely as you seem to understand the word.

Parables are allegories, but the psalmist while promising allegories will come does not claim everything in the Bible or the words of Christ are parables.

​@Ignatius of Antioch "Your wrong about allegorical being the only other usage"

In fact there are four usages of each text. Historic, allegoric, moral and anagogic.

"and each genre has to be read that way."

It so happens the historic books have to be read that way.

"Most of the Old Testament is epic poetry which is different than allegory other sometimes there are things like that."

Epic poetry is not a genre of the Bible. The narrative style of historic books may remind you f epic poetry, but I suspect you haven't read all that much Homer or Virgil if so. They are MUCH more dramatising each scene.

In comparison to a song in Homer, a book in the OT is more like an Islendinga-Saga. A succinct, but detailed prose account of what really or most probably happened. In the Bible, we need not reduce the confidence level of "really" to only "most probably".

@Ignatius of Antioch "From a standpoint of Genesis let's see what scripture tells us how the authors understood "raqia" or firmament. Then let's see from the source what it means and then see what the ancient Hebrew sources and some mythology says. Is what you read possible?"

Yes, what we read is really possible.

I defended that in a debate with Drew Gasaway (could be a pseudonym) on FB:

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2020/01/intro-to-raqia-debate-with-drew-gasaway.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ron Aller In the Catholic Church, the standard view of Apocalypse 20 is the Millennium started with Christ's resurrection and "at the end of the thousand years" refers to end times.

Ignatius of Antioch

@Ron Aller I have your stupid quotes about the Fathers and their context which you haven't they didn't teach premillennialism even a lot of people on your side admit that. I was one of your tribe must of my life and taught apologetics on your team.

Ignatius of Antioch

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "popular narrations" are narratives like historical ones that didn't exist in the 13th century BC and not until much later. 32 defines and things and relate to it the whole works is about Genesis.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So you're a Sede? The Church teaches that the office of the pope will never be vacant.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yep I am Orthodox but even if he was saints can be wrong.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I gave an example of context earlier so that is not true. All your book's arguments from the Fathers use spurious quote books, are out of context or are just narrating the scriptures.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Augustine didn't believe in 6 days of creation and did embrace a non-literal view. Psalm 78:2 use of "dark sayings from of old" is the same wording used for myths all over heir culture and it even is phrased before with parables.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ancient Near East Epic poetry isn't the same as allegory. If you think entering cosmology in the wrong order and then giving a different order of the same cosmology is historical then you have reading issues. There are also too many other issues with that approach to with deal all of them. A part of your problem is you're comparing Greek and Latin mythology with Ancient Near East mythology while they borrowed some things their writing style is different and it even differs from nation to nation.