[But proof texts don't prove a consensus.]
how have i proof texted? I posted ECFs specifically saying its impermissible to interpret the days of creation allegorically and more recent Saints who explicitly wrote against evolution, and you call that proof texting?
[And even if we can't, you still haven't answered my question of why we even need to see a consensus, even if it's manufactured.]
what do you suggest as an alternative?
as for Riddikulus' qutoes -- those don't rule out the possibility of a literal interpretation -- I'm asking for Saints who have explicitly denied the literality of Genesis or explicitly favored evolution, just as I provided quotes of Fathers who explicitly taught that the days cannot be allegorical and who explicitly taught against evolution. and the quote from St. Clement didnt actually give any indication of referring to the length of the days, its just assumed that that's what he's referring to, but the quote i provided shows that that cannot be what he is referring to. furthermore, as i have repeatedly said, the length of the days is probably the least important issue -- more importantly is what is the origin of death -- God, or man's sin? and despite a few random quotes from a few early Fathers, the Church adopted a literal timeline for its calendar.
[How is Genesis being reinterpreted when there isn't a consensous on how it was interpretated to begin with? This thread alone shows that the Church Fathers weren't consistant in seeing it as literal.]
im still failing to see how there isnt a majority concensus -- i knooooooow that not every single Father interpreted the days of Genesis as only literal (but we don't see them denying hte literal either ... ). but there's not instances of Fathers saying Adam and Eve aren't literal or that death existed before sin, and so on. those are the important issues, beacuse even if the days aren't literal that doesn't automatically mean evolution happened. thats a huuuuge leap.
[And yet, in turning to the Fathers, you ignore those who disagree with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. So aren't you really just picking and choosing which Fathers you deem to be consistent with your view, and discarding those you who aren't?]
which Fathers might those be?
Do you believe in universalism because of St. Gregory of Nyssa? you seem to be saying that if even one or two Fathers says something out of line with the rest that that is enough to justify a new interpretation.
[So far it would seem that we are hard-pressed to establish any set tradition regarding Genesis. The writings we have haven't gone anywhere to provide a consensous of a literal interpretation. So far we only have everyone agreeing that God created; how He did that and how long He took is questionable. As we have no dogma on the interpretation of Genesis, one is left to follow one's conscience; as clearly the Church Fathers have done. Why is it so important for you to enforce a literal understanding?]
because if evolution is true, then God created death, and then death is good, which means it was pointless for Christ to defeat death. Ecumenical canons tell us that this cannot be so:
Canon 109 of African Code, Council of Carthage, ratified at Trullo and Nicea II.
That Adam was not created by God subject to death.
That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX.
Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.
and because if we can't trust the Fathers to transmit the faith unadulterated we are Protestants.
[However, that isn't an answer to the question asked. Can you give some quotes or names of "theistic evolutionists" to support your claims?]
youre blowing my mind here. whats not obvious about what i said? if a theistic evolutionist interprets the days of Genesis as billions of years (which no Father ever said) because of science, then they are claiming to understand the creative acts of God better than the Fathers. Deacon Kuraev is one example. Dobhzansky is another.
[So scientists don't interpret scripture, as you first claimed?]
obviously they do. no Father ever said the days were actually billions of years -- that interpretation comes only from science.
[ What exactly are you claiming, then? That scientists who are Christians are content to understand Scripture in the light of scientific evidence? If so, how is this problematic?]
because that scientific "evidence" contradicts our God-bearing Fathers. and its not observable evidence -- its assumptions about supposed billions of years ago based on what is seen now. no one actually observed this whole process of common descent leading to the world we know. its an assumption.
