Theistic Evolution ~ is it compatible with orthodox teaching & doctrine? .

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
St. Symeon the New Theologian, [FONT=&quot]\Quoted in Kontoglou, Pege Zoes, “Fount of Life,” 1951, p. 82[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He who thinks that because he has been disciplined in secular wisdom he knows everything will never succeed in beholding the mysteries of God, until he first wills to humble himself and become a “fool,” divesting himself both of his pride and of the knowledge which he has acquired. For he who does this, and follows with unhesitating faith those who are wise in things divine, and is guided by them, comes together with them to the city of the living God. And led and illumined by the Holy Spirit he sees and is taught those things which no other man can behold and learn. And then he becomes one taught by God [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

Michael G

Abe Frohmann
Feb 22, 2004
33,441
11,984
50
Six-burgh, Pa
Visit site
✟95,591.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican



Saint%20Thomas%20Aquinas-05.jpg

[/CENTER]

Sorry, Sphinx, I view Aquinas more as being a high heretic than as being "the angelic doctor."
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
St. Symeon the New Theologian, [FONT=&quot]\Quoted in Kontoglou, Pege Zoes, “Fount of Life,” 1951, p. 82[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He who thinks that because he has been disciplined in secular wisdom he knows everything will never succeed in beholding the mysteries of God, until he first wills to humble himself and become a “fool,” divesting himself both of his pride and of the knowledge which he has acquired. For he who does this, and follows with unhesitating faith those who are wise in things divine, and is guided by them, comes together with them to the city of the living God. And led and illumined by the Holy Spirit he sees and is taught those things which no other man can behold and learn. And then he becomes one taught by God [/FONT]

I don't know - I have never heard any complains of Thomas being a prideful or vain man, or unspiritual, or lacking faith. So this quote seems somehow inappropriate to me.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 31, 2009
316
33
✟8,124.00
Faith
Christian
I feel I ought to leap to Brother Thomas's defence! He had a mystical experience towards the end of his life, leading him to acknowledge that all he had written was 'as straw', i.e. could never adequately describe the God of faith and mystery. I think he saw his Theology as a fruitful discourse which enabled a deepening of faith, but which could never fully contain the transcendent mystery of God. That is, he recognised, as a good Christian theologian should, that faced with the experience of the Most High, that our ultimate goal is not to understand God, but to know Him.

With this in mind, I think we can forgive him his metaphysical nitpicking.

(Indeed, his metaphysical nitpicking comes in very handy when discussing evolution, which I will finish discussing this afternoon!)
 
Upvote 0

Michael G

Abe Frohmann
Feb 22, 2004
33,441
11,984
50
Six-burgh, Pa
Visit site
✟95,591.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I feel I ought to leap to Brother Thomas's defence! He had a mystical experience towards the end of his life, leading him to acknowledge that all he had written was 'as straw', i.e. could never adequately describe the God of faith and mystery. I think he saw his Theology as a fruitful discourse which enabled a deepening of faith, but which could never fully contain the transcendent mystery of God. That is, he recognised, as a good Christian theologian should, that faced with the experience of the Most High, that our ultimate goal is not to understand God, but to know Him.

With this in mind, I think we can forgive him his metaphysical nitpicking.

(Indeed, his metaphysical nitpicking comes in very handy when discussing evolution, which I will finish discussing this afternoon!)

His metaphysical nitpicking runs contrary to the Orthodox tendency to leave things to mystery that are not required for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
I don't know - I have never heard any complains of Thomas being a prideful or vain man, or unspiritual, or lacking faith. So this quote seems somehow inappropriate to me.


oh sorry, that quote wasnt in reference to Aquinas at all, that was just for the discussion on evolution
 
Upvote 0

Protoevangel

Smash the Patriarchy!
Feb 6, 2004
11,662
1,248
Eugene, OR
✟33,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't think that you even touched upon it. I asked you if you think that Scripture and other things in Tradition were served word by word on a plate. That's how Muslims think of the Quran, if I'm not mistaken, whereas - again if I'm not mistaken - in Christianity God does wonderous works with His creation out of love. I thought that Tradition was a response to God's love, a response that involves human thinking, and not just something that was passed on in an unintelligible manner. Now if it is not unintelligible but intelligible, at least partly, and if God wants us to understand it, appreciate it and live as if at one with it, how could one object against human individuals using their God-given gifts to try to understand Tradition? It seems to me even that it is something highly recommendable.
Alright, below is your question and my answer to it:

JESUS<3sYOU said:
Do you think that the theologians of the Orthodox tradition were served everything on a plate, that everything that was revealed to them was spelled out literally, word by word, to them? I don't claim to know, but I wasn't aware even that the Scripture was thought of that way.
The Orthodox believer reads the Holy Scriptures guided by the Fathers, being informed by their insights and attitudes. While every single conclusion is not held to dogmatically... when there is consensus, this holds much weight. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement on every detail, but is more organic, as we see in the four Gospel accounts of Christ.
To spell it out:

1.) We "are informed by their insights and attitudes". If they "served everything on a plate" and "spelled out literally, word by word", this would be entirely moot.

2.) "Every single conclusion is not held to dogmatically" would not be true if they "served everything on a plate" and "spelled out literally, word by word".

3.) If they "served everything on a plate" and "spelled out literally, word by word", then my statement that "consensus does not mean 100% agreement" would be clearly false.

4.) Finally, if they "served everything on a plate" and "spelled out literally, word by word", then understanding and following what they say would be mechanical than organic.

I hope that makes it more clear for you.

I do feel the need to mention though, that nothing I (or anyone here) has said should lead one to logically conclude that we are suggesting something so silly as verbal plenary inspiration.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Seriously? You couldn't discern the answers to your questions in my reply? OK, I can spell it out for you.

You asked:


I answered:

Let's see...

"their insights and attitudes" =/= "served everything on a plate"
"every single conclusion is not held to dogmatically" =/= "spelled out literally, word by word"
"Consensus does not mean 100% agreement on every detail" =/= "served everything on a plate"
"is more organic" =/= "spelled out literally, word by word"

There, I have spelled it out literally, word by word for you, and served it to you on a plate.

Your very question was not germane to the discussion in the first place, as nothing I (or anyone) has said could lead a thinking person to conclude something so utterly ludicrous as verbal plenary inspiration. It was nothing but a straw man in the first place.

daaaang there Proto, i think some chillaxin' is in order!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I suppose the lack of theological record would be because they didn't exist within living memory. I wonder too if they would have thought of themselves as being a different kind of thing? We are probably not thinking of a time with a well developed theological tradition in place. It would be interesting to speculate, from a TE standpoint, where in the human line this change took place. We know Neanderthals buried their dead with flowers - which seems to suggest some kind of religious sensibility.

the 6 days of Creation were also outside of a living memory until Moses wrote it down

I think the answer to your other question would be the same as any creature that existed once but later became extinct. Or really, why create at all? My feeling is that God creates everything that could possibly be more than nothing, but that is perhaps not a conventional theological position.

yeah, but it seems that these creatures were only around for the sole purpose of being bred out by humans. nothing catastrophic took them away, but their ultimate extinction is actually a part of God's plan for redemption. I cannot believe in a God that would will the ultimate destruction of anything He creates.

I'm not sure about the humanity thing. People are animals, as well as being creatures with immortal souls. (I always think of Screwtape's disgusted characterization of us as a kind of amphibian in this context.) If Christ was fully human, then that means he was an animal too, and that is part of what is really shocking about Christianity.

no, people are not animals according to our teaching. humans are the only beings that exist in the spiritual world and the physical world at the same time, and we are the only creatures that can partake of God's Divine Nature. we are creatures to be sure, but never have been animals.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
a creature created by God that exists only in the material world and cannot partake of God's Divine Nature.

Well, that would preclude people for sure.

But a more usual definition would be a living thing that has voluntary movement.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
But a more usual definition would be a living thing that has voluntary movement.

and that's fine, if that is the angle you are coming from/how you see the world. but, by that definition, angels are animals because they are living things that have voluntary movement
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
and that's fine, if that is the angle you are coming from/how you see the world. but, by that definition, angels are animals because they are living things that have voluntary movement

No, because they don't have bodies. I guess I should have put that in my definition - biology types don't generally worry about anything without a body. I can just see trying to put that into the mix in a lab.:doh:
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
No, because they don't have bodies. I guess I should have put that in my definition - biology types don't generally worry about anything without a body. I can just see trying to put that into the mix in a lab.
doh.gif

and that's fine for biology types, until you come on to a theology forum where stuff that is bodliess and supernatural is discussed, like our origins.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
i still dont understand how the differentiation between man and animal means that animals are not meant to be incorrupt ...

St. Symeon the New Theologian is one of the most exalted mystics of the Orthodox Church. He says:

[FONT=&quot]Ethical Discourses 1.1[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]God did not, as some people think, just give Paradise to our ancestors at the beginning, nor did He make only Paradise incorruptible. No! Instead, He did much more. Before Paradise He made the whole earth, the one which we inhabit, and everything in it. Nor that alone, but He also in five days brought the heavens and all they contain into being. On the sixth day He made Adam and established him as lord and king of all the visible creation. Neither Eve nor Paradise were yet created, but the whole world had been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptible yet material and perceptible. It was this world, as we said, which was given to Adam and to his descendants for their enjoyment. Does this seem strange to you? It should not. Pay attention to our argument, and it will show you clearly how this is so from the holy Scripture. It is written there: &#8220;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void.&#8221; Next, the remaining creative works of God are given in exact detail, and then, after &#8220;there was evening and morning the fifth day, &#8220; Scripture adds: &#8220;Then God said, &#8220;Let us make man after our image, in our likeness . . . male and female He created them [1:26-27]. Male and female, it says, not as though Eve had already come into being, but instead as she was still in Adam&#8217;s side, co-existing with him.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.1[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, if even transgressing his commandment and being condemned to live and to die we men have grown to so great a multitude, imagine how many we might have been if there were no death: everyone who has been born from the creation of the world until now still alive, and what sort of life and way of living we might have had if we had been preserved incorruptible and immortal in an uncorrupted world, going through life without sin or sorrow, free of cares and troubles.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ethical Discourses[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 1.2 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Adam was created with an incorruptible body, though one which was material and on the whole not yet spiritual, and was established by God the Creator as the immortal king of an incorrupt world, and I mean by the latter everything under heaven and not just Paradise &#8230; [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ethical Discourses 1.5 [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You see then that not unreasonably do we say that all the creation was also incorrupt from the beginning, and was furnished by God after the order of Paradise, but was cursed with corruption and led into bondage when it was subjected to the futility of men (cf. Rom. 8:20-21). St. Symeon the New Theologian, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On the Mystical Life vol. 1, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]pg. 35[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was not fitting that men&#8217;s bodies should be restored and made incorruptible before the renewal of all creation. Instead, just as the created world was first brought into existence as inccorupt, and then later, man, so again it is creation which must be first transformed from corruption into incorruption.[/FONT]


for Orthodoxy the fall of man has much broader effects than it does in western traditions - it is in fact the fall of the entire cosmos. everything we see around us today is the result of this cosmic fall from Paradise, not of an endless chain of progression.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Protoevangel

Smash the Patriarchy!
Feb 6, 2004
11,662
1,248
Eugene, OR
✟33,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
No, I'm sorry, It doesn't. Although they would be fifth cousinss, they would be gebetically much more closely related than a pair of fifth cousins that did not come from a series of closely related parents.
Which only increases the chance of offspring being affected by deleterious effects... At least with the closest of relatives.

Most people these days overestimate the number of people needed for a stable breeding population - it used to be common to marry first cousins, and populations were smaller, with the occasional outsider popping in. But generally when you have only a few pairs of mating adults, the genetic diversity gets less and less rather than greater. Where would the new genes come from to create the diversity? Cheetahs are a good modern example of this.
Given the model I've suggested as a possibility, the proto-ancestors would have held the genetic capacity for all of the diversity we see today... Similarly to how the Wolf holds all of the genetic diversity that led to Chihuahuas and English Mastiffs. Referencing back to my earlier post... Like began mating with like, thereby dividing the characteristics over time.

I also don't really like the argument of - was it Cain? - having unknowingly met his younger sister wandering in the mountians and marrying her.
I don't recall Scripture or any Father mentioning Cain "wandering in the mountians" or of him "finding" his wife there. Perhaps I have missed something?

If there were no other humans other than his parents and siblings, wouldn't it have been pretty obvious that she had to be related? And wouldn't they likely have mentioned something about their family? "Haven't seen you hanging around the mountains before - are you new around here?"
Isn't that's kind of what we've been discussing? You seem to be assuming your conclusion here. I would suggest that absolutely they would have known they were siblings, however and whenever they met.

I tend to agree with Michael on this one - maintaining a YEC model is going to demand a lot of simply leaving the details up to God, past the period of the actual creation itself. I personally find that approach more appealing than most of the "creation science" which just gets my back up. I suppose the difficulty is if you take the approach of leaving it up to God, how do you decide when it is appropriate to start talking about history in terms of science rather than the miraculous?
You and Michael threw out questions, and we offered possibilities. No one is suggesting "creation science" as a way of actually approaching the text or the faith... We were only answering your questions with possible explanations, of how the Father's exposting of Genesis 1-3 could be understood and believed in a modern context. I don't think any of us are attempting to suggest that any one of our harmonizations are hard-and fast fact. Absolutely, when it comes to the faith, leaving the details up to God is the best course. But when the consensus of the Holy Fathers is being questioned, the faithful will explore and discuss the issues.
 
Upvote 0