The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

There seems to be some doubt in some quarters that the early church was universally YE. Perhaps we could make a roster of recorded comments on the subject? This would give us a nice objective resource.

I'm not aware of any church fathers who held to an old earth. Are there any?

So lets stick with statements by early churchmen (say pre-1800) on "the age of the earth" for this thread. Perhaps Michael could kick things off.

My Executive Summary of the quotes assembled below, for the impatient

My rules are that the quote must reasonably give an estimate for how old the earth is, hence I don't include those who just specify that the earth was created in six literal days, or those who reference the prophetic significance of the literal genesis days as 1000 year ages in the lifetime of created things. I'll edit this summary as people add quotes... If you want to dispute one of my calls, do it below. That also is a legitimate use of this thread.

Young earthers, quoted age of earth (in years)

Irenaeus (130–202), <6000
Theophilus (?-185), 5695
Hippolytus of Rome (?-235), 5500 at the birth of Christ
Julius Africanus (160-240) , 5500 at the birth of Christ
Origen (182-251), much less than 10,000
Lactantius (240-320), <6000
Augustine(354-430), <6000
John Calvin(1509-1564), <6000
James Ussher(1581-1656), 4004 at the birth of Christ
John Lightfoot (1602-1675), 3928 at the birth of Christ

Old earthers, quoted age (in years)

None identified (yet!)

Not quite dating the earth...

Clement of Alexandria (150-215), dates Adam at 5592 BC & enigmatically puts creation outside of time.
Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339), from Adam to Christ is 5228 years
Venerable Bede (672-735), 3952 years before Christ (no quote identified yet, this number is second hand)

Dale

_________________
Its all greek to me...

Martin Luther: (as cited in Plass, E.M., What Martin Luther Says, a Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian)

The Days of Creation were ordinary days in length. We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake.

When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.

John Calvin: (McNeil, J.T. (ed.), Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion 1, p. 160-161, 182)

albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years . God's work was completed not in a moment but in six days.

Augustine

Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been . . . . And when they are asked, how, . . . they reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and . . . thus there was at intervals a new beginning made. . . . But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived . . . by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.

Theophilus

There are not two myriads of myriads28 of years, even though Plato said such a period had elapsed between the deluge and his own time, . . . The world is not uncreated not is there spontaneous production of everything, as Pythagoras and the others have babbled; instead the world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth. . . . The total number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.

If some period has escaped our notice, says 50 or 100 or even 200 years, at any rate it is not myriads, or thousands of years as it was for Plato . . . and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods. It may be that we do not know the exact total of all the years simply because the additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books."

Origen

"the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that."

Another interesting data point would be how many of these same church fathers also believed the Bible 'clearly' taught cosmological Geocentrism.

However I don't think the traditions of 'young earth', 'old earth', 'geocentrism' are really the issue here. Scripture, not tradition, should be our true guide.

So if we are looking to the early fathers for help, I think a more appropriate question is...
How many church fathers held to a 24 hour interpretation for the 'days' of Genesis 1?
And there is a wide range of opinions among the fathers regarding this question. And many of the early fathers disagreed with the Young Earth presupposition that a 'Creation Day' equals 24 hours.
**edit**
Delete the following

Michael was kind enough to point out that my memory of Barnabus position regarding the length of creation days was incorrect.
**end edit**
- Augustine teaches that the Creation Days are to be understood symbolically and that God created the universe instantaneously

In Summa Aquinas recognizes the differences of opinion among the early fathers regarding the proper interpretation of Genesis 1 'days'.

So in a nutshell, yes some early fathers did teach that a Creation Day was 24 hours (and the universe revolved around earth). But there were also many eminent fathers (such as Augustine) who did not buy into this Young Earth presuppostition.

In Christ

Try this for some quotes from the Fathers

Early Church Fathers on Genesis
Copyright 2005 John Tobin This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm





One of the most common claims Young Earth Creationists use when arguing Biblically for their view point is that YEC was the "original" viewpoint of the Church until modern times. That is flat out wrong and some of the leading young-earth creationist groups are blatantly repeating that falsehood. For an example I will refer you to ICR impact article number 160 "Creation Science and the early Church" Answers in Genesis also has a link to that article in their Q&A section. What makes it even more tragic is that there are many people like me who stick with YEC in large part because they think the Early Church Fathers (ECF's) held to it. My first step in leaving the shackles of YEC thought was when I found out that a number of high profile ECF's did not hold a young-earth interpretation. But of course please do not take my word for it, you can read what the ECF's said for yourself below. For ease of research I have only used quotes from works available online and have attached the links at the bottom of each quote. Most of the quotes are pretty long because I want to make sure that they are in context but I have been careful to emphasize the important parts.

There is a straw man that YEC's will throw at me for writing this. They will pull quotes of the ECF's stating that the earth is a matter of thousands of years old but that is misleading because the ECF's knowledge of geology is not what is important but rather whether or not they think Scripture demands a literal Six Day interpretation. Remember that this essay is not about what the early church thought of natural history but rather what they thought of the Bible. If we were to use their words about the age of the earth as "proof" that Christianity taught a young earth than we must also keep in mind that all of the ECF's, as far as I can tell, believed in Ptolemy's earth-centered model of the universe. So let us stick to what they said about Bibilical interpretation.

Let us start with the Early Father of the Church, Origen. In his book Against Celus he stated:

".We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's "commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created," when we quoted the words, "He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;" remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were, very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son--the Word--to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone, and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."
(Against Celus 6:60 [AD 248])

You can find this book online at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04166.htm

Here he is not arguing for a specific view but rather finding fault with the literalists. Next we move onto someone everyone must be familiar with, St. Justin Martyr.

"For as Adam was told that in the [d]ay [h]e ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject."
(Dialog with Typho the Jew chapter 81 [AD 155])

Online source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm

In this quote we have St. Justin Martyr talking about the word "day" in Genesis meaning a period of a thousand years by pointing out that despite God telling Adam he would die within a day of sinning he lived over 900 years. That is to say that the days were not literal 24 hour periods. This view is not limited to St. Justin as we see in the next quote Irenaeus speaks of a similar idea:

"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin."
(Against Herasies, 5:23 [AD 189])

Online Source: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01...m#P9216_2679777

It appears that this view of each day containing a thousand years was popular among Early Church Fathers as we read from St. Cyprian of Carthage:

""As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren hath borne seven"
(Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250])

Online Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0507.htm

I find what Clement of Alexandria writes curious. He says that we cannot know when creation took place from reading Scripture:

""That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day. "
(Miscellanies 6.16 [208 AD])

Online Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm

St. Augustine also comments on his view of the word "day" in the Creation Week. In City of God St. Augustine expressed his amazement of the creation days:

"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"
(City of God 11:6 [AD 419])

Online Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm

Augustine refers to the days as "impossible to conceive". I doubt he would refer to 24 hour periods as inconceivable. There are more quotes out there and I intend to find them. But such work takes time and I am but a lowly working student. I intend to add more quotes as I find them but the ones I have already found from some of the most influential ECF's should be more than enough to dispel the false notion that six 24-hour day creationism held some kind of monopoly on Christian thought for 1800 years. But that is not to say YEC did not exist back then. There were some 24 hour day proponents among the ECF's as well.

The truth is there really was no universal consensus on interpreting Genesis but the fact that there was such a diversity of views proves that organizations like AiG and ICR are telling people what is clearly not true. It saddens me to think that Christians would use such apologetics in the name of Christ.

[note added by Glenn Morton: For a quote from Clement of Alexandria (pointed out to me by John) and some Talmudic views along the same line see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm

I agree with DBowling here.

I find it immensely irrelevant what they believed about scientific matters since they had very little evidence from nature itself to work with. What is more important is how they approached the interpretation of Scripture. Did they insist that it be read with strict historical literalness or not? Would they ever let the evidence from God's Creation influence how they interpreted God's Word?

I think it is VERY useful to read St. Augustine's approach on these issues. Regardless of where he ended up as far as conclusions, his approach is very well worth the read. I have done a complete analysis in another thread on this forum, just look for St. Augustine in the title.

It is as silly to expect the early church to hold an old earth with vast geological ages than to hold Copernicanism and the Big Bang, not to mnetion atomic theory quantam mechanics etc.

Now remember that they accepted a geocentric "solar System" with tiny stars stuck on a solid dome as that was the view of the day.

The key is that they were not bound to some strict biblical literalism and of course this was developed after 1600 before geologists came along.

More later

Michael

I'm not trying to detour the thread as the OP was with reference to the fathers.

However, an interesting corollary might be this question: As Genesis was (IMO) written in ancient Hebrew (yes I know there are differences of thought about this...), when I have a question regarding interpretation of the Hebrew text I also like to consider the writings and opinions from Judaism. (Where is AndyHill when you need him? )

Thus it might be fun to piggyback this on to the church fathers question as well and look at opinions from this quarter regarding their interpretation of the creation text.

If you all feel that this would dilute the intent of the OP, then either ignore me or split this off as desired-

This really is a detour, but what else would Genesis (in whoever's opinion) have been written in, Ristretto?

Hey come on guys, play by the rules!

Just quotes from churchmen prior to 1800 please. Matthew's format is great - Churchman then quote. Ideally if we could have source and date too!

If you want to discuss other topics, start your own thread, this is for "quotes from the church pre-1800 on the age of the earth".

Old earth churchmen? I don't believe they exist.

Dale

_________________
Its all greek to me...

Irenaeus Against Heresies Vol 1, 28:3 [A.D. 189]

"For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.

Irenaeus thinks that the creation will come to an end at the six thousandth year. I reckon I'm justified in saying he thinks it is less than six thousand years old in the second century.

_________________
Its all greek to me...

Lactantius, Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]

"Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, 'In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day'"

_________________
Its all greek to me...

I have begun to generate a thread summary of the quotes published in this thread in the starting post. Check it out above as we go.

Dale

_________________
Its all greek to me...

Quotes, such as these, really do very little to support the YEC claims of Historicity. Even if they did support YEC claims, that would actually only help in supporting the "historicity" of YEC view not the "correctness" of that view, unless of course we are to adopt all the ECF beliefs. I seriously doubt anyone would want to do this. For example take a look at what some of the ECF beliefs when it comes to the place of women in the world!

But back on point notice how the ECF seem to all relate the creation "days" to the total "lifespan" of the earth. The ECF seem to believe a "Day of creation" to be directly related to a "thousand years of earth history," and not "24 hours of history." This seems incongrous with what a strict YEC interpretation style that would require a day to be 24 hours only. If the ECF used the YEC interpertation style then I would have expected the ECF to say that since the world was created in 6 days then in 6 days will it come to a close. Of course this would be foolish to believe and so they don't say that, but it does illustrate that at least they take a much more figurative view of "days" and the creation story than the YEC would lead us to believe.

I think we are playing by the rules. We are trying to ground the definitions in Scripture instead of arbitrary definitions that only deal with straw men.

The Scriptural issue in question is: How long is a 'creation day' within the context of the Genesis Creation Account.
Young Earthers believe that a 'creation day' is 24 hours.
Old Earthers believe that a 'creation day' represents a vast period of time significantly longer than 24 hours, or that 'creation days' are symbolic in nature.

Based on these definitions any Church Father who held that a Genesis 1 'day' represents 1000 years would in fact reflect an 'old earth' interpretation of the Genesis text.

And so yes, there are a number of Church Fathers who hold to an 'old earth' interpretation of the Genesis text in question as many of the quotes in this thread show.

In Christ

But I am not sure what the purpose of the question really is. There is really no reason that any Church Father would believe in an earth billions of years old when there was not yet any evidence for it. No more than they would believe in a heliocentric solar system (and thus reinterpret Scripture) before the evidence was there.

What the Church Fathers thought about theology is useful and important. What they thought about the natural world is irrelevant other than to historians who like to track the growth and development of the history of scientific thought.

In short, even though the earth is billions of years old, it would be VERY surprising for any early Church Father to have known this, or even considered it.

There are two much more relevant questions along these lines:

1. How did these fathers approach the Scripture in places where it seems to touch upon such matters? [see Augustine, Origen, etc]

2. How did the Church react when scientific evidence arise that seemed to contradict their current interpretations of Scripture? [consider heliocentrism, old earth, evolution, etc]

The question of which Church Fathers believed in an old earth is, as mentioned early, akin to asking which Church Fathers believed in heliocentrism. They would have no reason to believe either.