Did the early Church believe in evolution?

[Dave Slayer]

Did the early Church believe in evolution?

 

[NooneSpecial]

Good question.

 

[Vic C.]

I think this is a good question also. Maybe some of the RCC members will chime in on this one.

 

[francisdesales]

I think this is a good question also. Maybe some of the RCC members will chime in on this one.

I think the ancients didn't concern themselves with "evolution", although I know St. Aquinas (no doubt others, as well) recognized that evolution, to some degree, was valid science. I am aware of some Fathers making comments about the apparent age of the earth probably being more than 4000 years (to them) old. I do know that some of the Fathers did not feel compelled to take a literal ONLY approach to Scriptures. St. Augustine wrote on this subject and the literal interpretation of Genesis and saw one could take the first three chapters metaphorically (without necessarily saying the literal interpretation was wrong. They were not concerned with balancing Scriptures with the supposed "fact" of macro-evolution). Origen and many others recognized that the Scriptures were not merely literal representations of facts and history. It became necessary to see that the OT did indeed point to Christ and there was much foreshadowing going on, such as the Levitical sacrifices foreshadowing Christ's own sacrifice.

In summary, I think the men of 1500 years ago were not faced with "scientific proof" that the Bible was merely giving religious truths and not worried about the actual progression behind how the world came to be and how long it took. The Bible was read as a means of coming into a relationship with God, not a science book. That has gotten lost on some moderns today...

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

Did the early Church believe in evolution?

Define the 'early church'.
If you mean Paul, Peter, James, etc, I see nothing that any of them say that makes it seem as tho they believed anything other than Adam being created as the FIRST man during the creation week.

If you mean these early church 'fathers' who couldnt agree in many areas of doctrine, it really doesnt matter. Satan was already beginning to infiltrate the church body so any false teachings that resulted wouldnt have changed Gods truth regardless of whether some men couldnt just accept Gods account of creation.


.

 

[ChevyRodeo]

My university professor in religion told me at 1st the catholic church embraced evolution as an explanation to how God did stuff. I dont know what has happened since then.

 

[francisdesales]

My university professor in religion told me at 1st the catholic church embraced evolution as an explanation to how God did stuff. I dont know what has happened since then.

There is no "official" position on this. We Catholics are told that the Bible is to be taken literally, unless the literary genre suggests otherwise, keeping in mind that there are layers of interpretation within each verse. Going beyond the literal, there are also moral and spiritual interpretations found in the same verse. Often, these deeper levels have much more meaning that point to the ultimate intent God had for Sacred Scriptures. This tends to be the case for Christians when reading the OT. Much of the historical books of the OT can be taken as mere history, but a deeper reading of them points to something more, something spiritual - Jesus Christ. Thus, we can view Genesis 1-3 in the same way. The literal intent is of little consequences to us, thousands or billions of years later matters little. The ultimate intent of Genesis is not to tell us how God made the world, blow by blow, but rather, that God indeed DID create, orderly, through His Word - Jesus Christ - and that man was the pinnacle of creation on earth. That particular dignity, coupled with the incarnation, is of much more value than whether God made the earth 6000 years ago or 20 billion.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

Christians cannot believe in evolution AND the fact that death came as a result of sin.The two just do not go together. Evolution needs "death" to have been happening since the beginning (as they see "beginning") and Christians can only accept that death came after Adam sinned.

 

[francisdesales]

Christians cannot believe in evolution AND the fact that death came as a result of sin.

Unless the "death" referred to was spiritual death. Given the gist of the ENTIRE Scriptures, a relationship between God and man, I think this is the more deeper meaning of "death entered into the world". I am not denying the possibility, but I don't see the literal sense as the likely intent.

I'm not about to argue if literal death already existed - since some forms of life have a life-expectancy of less than 6 days.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

Well, both happened. Spiritual and physical death. That was the curse.

Interestingly, the word "death" is not used for plants in the Bible. The Bible calls it "withers" which is not part of the curse for a plant to "die", because Adam and Eve had to eat them.

 

[Adullam]

I believe in devolution!

 

[francisdesales]

Well, both happened. Spiritual and physical death. That was the curse.

But your comments stress that even physical death did not occur before the fall of Adam and Eve. I believe the Bible did not mean to imply that, but was refering to spiritual death, which Scriptures speak of over and over again. Remember, the Bible is about a relationship between God and man, and that relationship does NOT end when we physically die... The devil knew this, and Adam and Eve found out - the "death" was spiritual, since they were cast out of the Garden, they were not killed.

Thus, the curse refers more importantly to CUTTING OFF the relationship, not dying physically - since we are born into eternal life when we physically die... Physically dying is a sign of spiritual death. The seen that points to the unseen.

Interestingly, the word "death" is not used for plants in the Bible. The Bible calls it "withers" which is not part of the curse for a plant to "die", because Adam and Eve had to eat them.

Plants physically die, no matter what the Bible calls it. "Withers" is just sophistry.
Furthermore, bacteria is not a plant.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

Satan was already beginning to infiltrate the church body so any false teachings that resulted wouldnt have changed Gods truth regardless of whether some men couldnt just accept Gods account of creation.

It seems someone can't even mention the word "Catholic" in these forums without others whipping out their Jack Chick tracts. Where do you get this little gem, from your objective reading of Scripture, then comparing it to what Dave Hunt says the Catholic Church teaches?

 

[francisdesales]

Satan was already beginning to infiltrate the church body so any false teachings that resulted wouldnt have changed Gods truth regardless of whether some men couldnt just accept Gods account of creation.

It seems someone can't even mention the word "Catholic" in these forums without others whipping out their Jack Chick tracts. Where do you get this little gem, from your objective reading of Scripture, then comparing it to what Dave Hunt says the Catholic Church teaches?

Naturally, those outside the Church know what is the correct teachings for the Church...

Just like the press know what's best for the military and Obama knows what's best for health care reform...

 

[Vic C.]

Um

I think this is a good question also. Maybe some of the RCC members will chime in on this one.

Yes I did ask for your opinions and I am sympathetic towards your plight, but everyone, can we please stick to discussing the early church and evolution? Thanks.

 

[dadof10]

Yes I did ask for your opinions and I am sympathetic towards your plight, but everyone, can we please stick to discussing the early church and evolution? Thanks.

Sure, Vic.

IMHO I don't see how the "early Church" could have possibly believed in evolution since the theory didn't come out until the 19th century, at least how we understand "evolution". I think the better question is: "Did the Early Church interpret Scripture literally", which Francis touched on above.

 

[francisdesales]

Yes I did ask for your opinions and I am sympathetic towards your plight, but everyone, can we please stick to discussing the early church and evolution? Thanks.

Sure, Vic.

IMHO I don't see how the "early Church" could have possibly believed in evolution since the theory didn't come out until the 19th century, at least how we understand "evolution". I think the better question is: "Did the Early Church interpret Scripture literally", which Francis touched on above.

Agree. This only becomes an issue for those who are Fundamentalists and interpret Scriptures literally in every case (ex. John 6, of course). For the Church of 250, this was not an issue, since science did not question the creation account. There would be no reason to think otherwise.

We know that God speaking through nature and the Word of God cannot contradict. When there are APPARENT contradictions, WE must change our paradigm, either with the faulty science or faulty interpretations of Scriptures. This can be a difficult thing. However, God is the author of Scriptures, and He knows the intent of His writing. Too many people seem to think they just KNOW that God meant to write Genesis 1-3 with a literal point of view in mind, and so the voice of nature must be wrong. What they are defending is their own personal paradigms, not the Word of God. God's Word includes the intent - and if God tells us nature is billions of years old, then our view of Genesis 1-3 must change to accept a more metaphorical intepretation as the intent. The Jew didn't know this, but God certainly did.

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

Agree. This only becomes an issue for those who are Fundamentalists and interpret Scriptures literally in every case (ex. John 6, of course).

Cheap shot! LOL I don't interpret all of Revelation literally either... or much of end times prophecy. :D

 

[Vic C.]

God's Word includes the intent - and if God tells us nature is billions of years old, then our view of Genesis 1-3 must change to accept a more metaphorical intepretation as the intent.

Not necessarily Joe. There is still the possibility that Man is and was created separately and outside the theory of evolution. Yes, I said theory; it's still a theory to me. :yes What if (to just speculate) God used this "period of evolution" to get His creation to the point where HE could create, in HIS image, Man? Does it have to be "status quo" evolutionary belief? What if what we call "evolution" really has HIS fingerprints all over it... a real life Intelligent Designer who somehow guided every step that the evolutionist would say was random?

Is any of this beyond the realm of the evolutionist's mindset?

 

[francisdesales]

Agree. This only becomes an issue for those who are Fundamentalists and interpret Scriptures literally in every case (ex. John 6, of course).

Cheap shot! LOL I don't interpret all of Revelation literally either... or much of end times prophecy. :D

Then you aren't a Fundamentalist!

Congrats

;)