Dear Dr. Sarfati, what does Scripture and Tradition Actually Mean?

French Catholics Usually NOT Young Earth Creationist - Why? · Are Normal French People Allowed to Look? · To French Fans of San Antonio · Are Some Catholics Being Taught That Young Earth Creationism Involves the Heresy "Sola Scriptura" [?] · Dear Dr. Sarfati, what does Scripture and Tradition Actually Mean?

First, I am glad you denounce the fraudulent claim that literal belief in Genesis 1 to 11 began with Ellen Gould White. I am now perusing her lies against the Catholic Church, and as Satan is a liar and accuser, I can safely say that she may have not at all been possessed, she was just a very biassed reader of people like Wylie and d'Aubigne, whose Luther romance, from childhood to Wartburg (it's interrupted after Wartburg to peep at Zwingli) is really magnificent as a romance, a bit like Washington Irving for Columbus, but fairly evasive about what Catholics were arguing.

The History of Interpretation of Genesis 1–11
Refuting Compromise, Chapter 3 (plus part of Chapter 8), 3rd Edn
by Jonathan Sarfati | Published: 18 January 2022 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/history-interpretation-genesis-refuting-compromise-3

Now, let's get down to a claim you make, not the least as crude as d'Aubigne or Wylie. Which I appreciate.

“Traditional” churches such as Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches hold that the combined testimony of the church fathers is on a par with Scripture itself. A common argument is that they were closer to the Apostles than we, so they know better.

However, this doesn’t necessarily follow. Paul’s letters were written largely to correct error in churches founded by the Apostles themselves. Furthermore, as the church became primarily Gentile, knowledge of Hebrew diminished, so that even some of the leading church fathers knew no Hebrew at all, including the highly influential Augustine (see below for more on Augustine). Still, many of the fathers had tremendous wisdom, which showed in the battles against anti-Trinitarian heresies.

What it means is not that each Church Father is a hagiographer, it means the Church Fathers taken together in what they agree on is a safe rule for the Christian faith.

Example : if all patristic writers had agreed the Tower of Babel were a kind of skyscraper, I would have had to scrap my idea Nimrod was aiming at a space rocket and God allowed that project to be fulfilled from Cape Canaveral and Bojkonur with a 4500 year delay, as He also allowed other individual projects (mentioned in the Bible and in Hebrew tradition) to be fulfilled (some wanted to get to heaven safe from any floods or disasters, well, Christ opened the pearly gates, and some wanted to kill God, they did so on Calvary). I drew a sigh of relief when I realised that some had taken the line it was a skyline of a towered wall. Because Church Fathers' unanimous is not an authority I'd like to brave.

Now, the parallel to the Bible books is in fact rather clear, namely that nothing that all apostolic churches agreed on can be wrong. And it is from these that we have the canon of most books in the NT (and some were disputed to the councils of Carthage and Rome, between Nicaea I and Constantinople I).

Then again, St. Paul wrote in response to appeals from Church leaders. Some of their diocesan laymen had gone wrong (notably often in Corinth!) and so he gives them admonitions to hand on. But as we claim, the Church Fathers never went wrong all of them together (you cite the majority view - recognised by St. Thomas as such - that creation days and rest happened within 168 hours, which we both take to be correct), so you too would allow that no fault happened across all of the apostolic churches in the time of the apostles.

Apart from that, I'd like to say simply "good work" but I stand somewhat questioning about your stating Julius Africanus had Christ born Anno Mundi 5500. You see, I have done some research, with the help of my friend Dean Stephan Borgehammar (Theol. fac. Lund) into the sources of the Roman martyrology for Christmas day, which says He was born after the flesh in Anno Mundi 5199. The late medieval version of Usuard got this addition from Historia scholastica, which in turn got the version of St. Jerome, who, in his turn made a good summing up of different details, but from Creation to Abraham followed Julius Africanus who had 2262 years Creation to Flood, 942 Flood to Abraham. In other words, he used a LXX without the second Cainan for Genesis 11.

Then again, there are parts where those who lived closest should be taken as knowing best : that's how I'd argue for not just Bible canon, but also Sacrifice of the Mass, also details of Apostolic Succession.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Chair of St. Peter in Rome
18.I.2022

Or obviously, for St. Peter not just leaving Jerusalem for Antioch, but also later Antioch for Rome./HGL