"Adaptations" and other "givens"

truefiction1 said:

I'm not sure I understand what we're claiming here? Could it be that God was taken by surprise by man's disobedience? I suppose we could argue for that through a literal reading of the fall narrative. Or are you claiming the God actually does not have a plan which is already accomplished in His eternal abode, and that He's just reacting to things as they happen in linear time? How, exactly, are you able to point to things which exist and say "these were not planned on by God"?

Click to expand...

It seems pretty simple to me, though I would not se the word "plan", precisely because it brings in these "personifications" of God, complete with their limitations. I would say "not INTENDED by God". Unless we admit that God did NOT intend for man to die (though God knows everything at all times and is not "surprised" by anything), we make nonsense of Orthodox theology. What in the heck do you suppose we are being saved from?

truefiction1 said:

I'm not sure I understand what we're claiming here? Could it be that God was taken by surprise by man's disobedience? I suppose we could argue for that through a literal reading of the fall narrative. Or are you claiming the God actually does not have a plan which is already accomplished in His eternal abode, and that He's just reacting to things as they happen in linear time? How, exactly, are you able to point to things which exist and say "these were not planned on by God"?

Click to expand...

I think it was St Maximos the Confessor who points out that God had two plans or wills in a sense. if one asks was death part of God's Divine eternal plan, the answer would be no. if it was, He would not have set about destroying it from the moment we fell. in other words, He created everything for life in communion with Him. that being said, you can say yes in the sense that in His actualized plan, He knew death would happen, He knew we would sin, and He works with what He has.

so I think the Orthodox answer is yes and no.

TrueFiction, you truly have me baffled. It sounds to me like you are espousing Calvinism. Of course God was not surprised by man's fall, but that does not mean He planned it. He foreknew - but foreknowledge is not synonymous with predestination. We have free will -- this necessitates that our decisions are not plotted out by God in advance. If they were we wouldn't speak of free will, just as the Calvinists do not speak of free will. Again, if God planned death then He also planned the sin that lead to death. That god is an absolute monster.

jckstraw72 said:

TrueFiction, you truly have me baffled. It sounds to me like you are espousing Calvinism. Of course God was not surprised by man's fall, but that does not mean He planned it. He foreknew - but foreknowledge is not synonymous with predestination. We have free will -- this necessitates that our decisions are not plotted out by God in advance. If they were we wouldn't speak of free will, just as the Calvinists do not speak of free will. Again, if God planned death then He also planned the sin that lead to death. That god is an absolute monster.

Click to expand...

I'm simply trying to establish an agreement between us all: those who accept the science of biological evolution and those who don't, that God foreknew our current state of existence (or fallen, mortal status), and that in His wisdom, far beyond our ability to fathom, He chose to to suffer it to be so.

Can we at least agree upon this? All of us?

rusmeister said:

Sorry I don't have time for this,
I didn't see anyone point out the Scripture "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin..."

Absolutely everything in Scripture and Tradition points to there being no death before the Fall. There is no way you can make a case for human death prior to the Fall that would be consistent with our Faith.

Click to expand...

Scripture clearly says death entered the world via sin. I do not deny this. I question how we should understand what death means in such contexts. Does it mean that until man sinned there was no entropy of any sort within organisms? That not even a blade of grass or strain of bacteria died?

truefiction1 said:

I'm simply trying to establish an agreement between us all: those who accept the science of biological evolution and those who don't, that God foreknew our current state of existence (or fallen, mortal status), and that in His wisdom, far beyond our ability to fathom, He chose to to suffer it to be so.

Can we at least agree upon this? All of us?

Click to expand...

I should think so. That's part of everything I've ever learned in the Church.

I imagine that disagreement would arise over the implications of given assumptions, the things not said, but logically implied.

IF there was human death in the world before the Fall, then death could not have entered the world by sin and passed upon all men, for it logically would have already done so, and this would contradict Scripture, and the gymnastics required in trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, to make out Scripture NOT saying what it says amounts to sophistry (without even turning to the Fathers).

truthseeker32 said:

Scripture clearly says death entered the world via sin. I do not deny this. I question how we should understand what death means in such contexts. Does it mean that until man sinned there was no entropy of any sort within organisms? That not even a blade of grass or strain of bacteria died?

Click to expand...

We are talking about human death, the death of a human being, organism. That is what matters in theological understanding. Any acceptance of any science that affirms constant death of the beings that became human in the course of this alleged development does mean the denial of Christian and Orthodox doctrine.

Entropy logically follows as a consequence of the Fall of created Man. It does NOT logically follow as something that was always happening being consistent with it also happening suddenly in the Fall. Either the Fall was a big deal or it wasn't. The Christian who imagines evolution, the Fall can't logically have been a big deal, since death was, in that case, already going on all around him.

We think the Fall was a cosmic catastrophe. The Christian evolutionist doesn't really have room for that. And that's the thing. The science tries to measure the effcts of that catastrophe by the results of the catastrophe without reference to what the thing must have been in a pre-catastrophic state. If you try to analyze rubble and exclude the idea of an ideal building, you're going to construct a pretty sorry building.

rusmeister said:

I should think so. That's part of everything I've ever learned in the Church.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Rus. It's nice to see at least one person acknowledge that God foreknew our current state of existence (or fallen, mortal status), and that in His wisdom, far beyond our ability to fathom, He chose to to suffer it to be so. After all, isn't this exactly like the argument that people of faith use against atheists when they inform us that they simply cannot believe in a loving God, because if one existed, He would not allow such great suffering as we have in the world? I believe it is. Is there anyone who disagrees with this approach to the denial of God's existence?

rusmeister said:

I imagine that disagreement would arise over the implications of given assumptions, the things not said, but logically implied.

IF there was human death in the world before the Fall, then death could not have entered the world by sin and passed upon all men, for it logically would have already done so, and this would contradict Scripture, and the gymnastics required in trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, to make out Scripture NOT saying what it says amounts to sophistry (without even turning to the Fathers).

Click to expand...

I think we've jumped a little too far ahead of ourselves here, and have overlooked an important point that shouldn't be left out: Never at any time have human beings been immortal. This, I'm sure we can also agree upon, since it is testified of in the fall narrative. We know that God did not kill Adam and Eve. He only prevented them from living forever by keeping them from the tree of life. So, can we also agree upon this statement of fact?: Never at anytime in the history of our species have we existed as immortal, incorruptible beings, but were created as mortals in the beginning, and failed (through sin) to rise above our mortal status, up until the resurrection of Christ. Is this correct? Yes or No ?

(By the way,Thanks for responding. I can appreciate that you're too busy to spend a lot of time in here.)

truefiction1 said:

Thank you, Rus. It's nice to see at least one person acknowledge that God foreknew our current state of existence (or fallen, mortal status), and that in His wisdom, far beyond our ability to fathom, He chose to to suffer it to be so. After all, isn't this exactly like the argument that people of faith use against atheists when they inform us that they simply cannot believe in a loving God, because if one existed, He would not allow such great suffering as we have in the world? I believe it is. Is there anyone who disagrees with this approach to the denial of God's existence?



I think we've jumped a little too far ahead of ourselves here, and have overlooked an important point that shouldn't be left out: Never at any time have human beings been immortal. This, I'm sure we can also agree upon, since it is testified of in the fall narrative. We know that God did not kill Adam and Eve. He only prevented them from living forever by keeping them from the tree of life. So, can we also agree upon this statement of fact?: Never at anytime in the history of our species have we existed as immortal, incorruptible beings, but were created as mortals in the beginning, and failed (through sin) to rise above our mortal status, up until the resurrection of Christ. Is this correct? Yes or No ?

(By the way,Thanks for responding. I can appreciate that you're too busy to spend a lot of time in here.)

Click to expand...

I get ten minutes here and there.

No, we cannot agree. God did not create us to die. Mortality is a consequence of the Fall. Death is the last enemy and while known by God to be the result of our bad choices, was nevertheless not created by God, but is responded to and used by God in His providence.

As a parent, I can see natural consequences to my kids for wrong behaviors, and even set up artificial ones. But I do not INTEND those consequences; I merely know about them, and plan for their possibility; I leave open the possibility that my kids may (in both the senses of possibility AND permission) make the right choices, and that what I desire is that they do so. So no, God absolutely never intended that we should die, but we do die because God allowed the possibility that gives us free will and allows us to freely choose Him.

So we already part ways in terms of logic that could support evolutionary thought.

I feel no mandatory need to justify science, or reconcile my faith to it; having learned how humans are so desperately wrong on so many things in life (while most often being partly right about many of those things), I see no reason why they should be less fallible just because they use scientific methods. I think the physicist still make mistakes in physics, because his metaphysics is most often wrong, and so he reads the tea leaves very scientifically, yet very wrong as a result.

TrueFiction, as Rus said, yes we can agree that God foreknew the Fall - but I don't see that that was ever questioned by anyone. We do not agree that God therefore planned our deaths or that God therefore created us already mortal. God also foreknew our sin -- do we therefore say He created us as sinners?

In fact, the belief that God created man naturally mortal, and those who believe it, fall under an Ecumenical anathema of the Church:

Canon 109 of African Code, (120 of 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.

Click to expand...

please note that I am NOT calling for anyone to be anathematized - I am simply providing the resources that show how serious this issue is.

and this is from St. Nikodemos' interpretation of that canon:

So, according to this Canon, God created man not mortal by natural necessity, but by nature immortal. And since it is characteristic of whatever is good not to force anyone to be good, therefore and on this account He created man free and independent with respect to his soul, in order that he might be induced to be good as a matter of choice and remain good, not by the exercise of force and violence, but by virtue of self-mastery and voluntarily; and by thus remaining good, that he might thenceforth maintain also the natural immortality of the body.

Click to expand...

truthseeker32 said:

Scripture clearly says death entered the world via sin. I do not deny this. I question how we should understand what death means in such contexts. Does it mean that until man sinned there was no entropy of any sort within organisms? That not even a blade of grass or strain of bacteria died?

Click to expand...

Truth, I have provided Patristic quotes that say that the entire earth, including plants and animals, was immortal and incorruptible. They didn't go into the specifics such as entropy and things like that, but they have indeed said incorruptible. I don't think I understand what else you're looking for. The Patristic teaching shows a world significantly different enough that it cannot fit into the uniformitarian scheme.

jckstraw72 said:

TrueFiction, as Rus said, yes we can agree that God foreknew the Fall - but I don't see that that was ever questioned by anyone. We do not agree that God therefore planned our deaths or that God therefore created us already mortal. God also foreknew our sin -- do we therefore say He created us as sinners?

In fact, the belief that God created man naturally mortal, and those who believe it, fall under an Ecumenical anathema of the Church:



please note that I am NOT calling for anyone to be anathematized - I am simply providing the resources that show how serious this issue is.

and this is from St. Nikodemos' interpretation of that canon:

Click to expand...

Well, I'm certainly glad that you're no calling for my excommunication, because if this were the case, you'd be up for correction by the Church. My statement does not put me under this anathema. Please read it again without jumping to false conclusions.

Never at anytime in the history of our species have we existed as immortal, incorruptible beings, but were created as mortals in the beginning, and failed (through sin) to rise above our mortal status, up until the resurrection of Christ.

both you and the Canon speak of man being created mortal -- could you explain to us what the difference is?

Yeah, TF, I see no difference between what you are saying and what the canon Jack cited condemns.

jckstraw72 said:

both you and the Canon speak of man being created mortal -- could you explain to us what the difference is?

Click to expand...

What it means is that man is not in himself capable of immortality. But rather, immortality was to be bestowed upon mankind by God. This, as we know, did not happen because we sinned. We know that this is the case because Adam and Eve would've needed to partake of the fruit of the "tree of life" in order to be able to live forever. They (the narrative tells us) were prevented. Hence, since they had come from the ground (being themselves products of the earth), it was God's decree that they should return to the Earth from whence they came -- in death. Neither Adam nor Eve, nor anyone afterwards has ever been immortal by nature.

St. Nicodimus is a fantastic saint, to be sure, but this isn't the only time he's held a mistaken interpretation. His thoughts on how the Church should regard Trinitarian baptisms of Christians outside of the Eastern Orthodox Tradition are very questionable, as they are strongly denied by actual Church practice. But that's a whole other topic that I wish to avoid right now.

Sorry, let me answer your question more directly: I did not claim that Adam and Eve would've died regardless of having sinned or not. The anathema is directed at those who state that our ancestors would've died, of natural necessity, even if they had succeeded in remaining obedient. I did not say that. I said they failed to ever become immortal because they sinned. I'll quote myself here: Never at anytime in the history of our species have we existed as immortal, incorruptible beings, but were created as mortals in the beginning, and failed (through sin) to rise above our mortal status, up until the resurrection of Christ.

If we can't agree on basic, essential, and established truths pertaining to ourselves, then our discussion, unfortunately, won't be able to continue. But I think we can agree so long as there continues to be clarification of language that we might at first be afraid of.

ok, thank you for that explanation. I understand the distinction you are drawing.

this question of whether Adam and Eve were immortal by nature can be answered differently depending on what we mean by nature. you are correct that Adam and Eve do not have the power of immortality within themselves, and so if we use "nature" to mean literally just the parts that make up man, then yes, man is naturally mortal. but if we broaden nature to include man's mode of existence - his condition of life (and this is the important question here) - then we say he is naturally immortal. It is natural for man to be a receptacle of grace and Adam and Eve were created in this condition. The condition they were in knew no corruption and would never have brought them to death, until they sinned. This is the angle that both the Canon and St. Nikodemos are writing from, and St. Nikodemos is certainly not alone in this. For instance, Abba Dorotheos writes:

In the beginning when God created man he set him in paradise (as the divine holy scriptures says), adorned with every virtue, and gave him a command not to eat of the tree in the middle of paradise. He was provided for in paradise, in prayer and contemplation in the midst of honor and glory; healthy in emotions and sense perceptions, and perfect in his nature as he was created. For, to the likeness of God did God make man, that is, immortal, having then the power to act freely, and adorned with all the virtues. -- Discourses and Sayings

Click to expand...

St. Ambrose:

If Eve, that is, the emotions of the first woman, had kept her lamp lighted, she would not have enfolded us in the meshes of her sin. She would not have fallen from the height of immortality which is established as the reward of virtue.

Click to expand...

as you have said, immortality is the reward of virtue, but it is also the height that Eve fell from.

St. Innocent:

God, having created Adam in His image and likeness, endowed him with many of His qualities. The most important of these was immortality. God, being all-just, created Adam sinless and pure. Being all-blessed, He created Adam blessed also, and this blessedness or beatitude was meant to increase in him day by day. -- Indication of the Way into the Kingdom of Heaven

Click to expand...

St. Irenaeus:

And He laid down for him certain conditions: so that, if he kept the command of God, then he would always remain as he was, that is, immortal; but if he did not, he would become mortal, melting into earth, whence his frame had been taken. -- Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 15

Click to expand...

jckstraw72 said:

ok, thank you for that explanation. I understand the distinction you are drawing.

this question of whether Adam and Eve were immortal by nature can be answered differently depending on what we mean by nature. you are correct that Adam and Eve do not have the power of immortality within themselves, and so if we use "nature" to mean literally just the parts that make up man, then yes, man is naturally mortal. but if we broaden nature to include man's mode of existence - his condition of life (and this is the important question here) - then we say he is naturally immortal. It is natural for man to be a receptacle of grace and Adam and Eve were created in this condition. The condition they were in knew no corruption and would never have brought them to death, until they sinned. This is the angle that both the Canon and St. Nikodemos are writing from, and St. Nikodemos is certainly not alone in this. For instance, Abba Dorotheos writes:

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you for this, and I can see that you have quite a knack for being able to recall such passages in the writings of saints which are so essential to the topic at hand.

I'll agree that we broaden nature to include man's mode of existence -- condition of life -- that we could say that he is naturally immortal if a continual vessel of grace. That being said, however, one can clearly see, even by careful examination of the Genesis narrative itself, that the height of Adam and Eve's communion with, and knowledge of God has often been greatly exaggerated in traditional Christian thought. I can explain how this occurred too, from the viewpoint of Christian mystical spirituality.

I'll mention here just in passing, not as evidence but only as food for thought, that Judaism has never taught the notion of a "fall" as is found within Christianity. The fall itself is never mentioned in the Bible. The Pentateuch is Jewish Scripture and it was they who determined its canonical authority.

From here on out, I suspect we'll experience greatly increased difficulty in communicating, because our underlying assumptions about the nature of religious (spiritual) knowledge in relation to other kinds of knowledge, which are arrived at in different ways, must now come to the forefront.

truefiction1 said:

Yes, thank you for this, and I can see that you have quite a knack for being able to recall such passages in the writings of saints which are so essential to the topic at hand.

I'll agree that we broaden nature to include man's mode of existence -- condition of life -- that we could say that he is naturally immortal if a continual vessel of grace. That being said, however, one can clearly see, even by careful examination of the Genesis narrative itself, that the height of Adam and Eve's communion with, and knowledge of God has often been greatly exaggerated in traditional Christian thought. I can explain how this occurred too, from the viewpoint of Christian mystical spirituality.

I'll mention here just in passing, not as evidence but only as food for thought, that Judaism has never taught the notion of a "fall" as is found within Christianity. The fall itself is never mentioned in the Bible. The Pentateuch is Jewish Scripture and it was they who determined its canonical authority.

From here on out, I suspect we'll experience greatly increased difficulty in communicating, because our underlying assumptions about the nature of religious (spiritual) knowledge in relation to other kinds of knowledge, which are arrived at in different ways, must now come to the forefront.

Click to expand...

don't be too impressed with my ability to recall! i have a document of quotes on this topic that is about 125 pages long that i have been saving for years -- precisely because i cannot recall the pertinent quotes on my own!

rusmeister said:

We are talking about human death, the death of a human being, organism. That is what matters in theological understanding. Any acceptance of any science that affirms constant death of the beings that became human in the course of this alleged development does mean the denial of Christian and Orthodox doctrine.

Click to expand...

How do we know that Genesis isn't referring only to spiritual death?

jckstraw72 said:

Truth, I have provided Patristic quotes that say that the entire earth, including plants and animals, was immortal and incorruptible. They didn't go into the specifics such as entropy and things like that, but they have indeed said incorruptible. I don't think I understand what else you're looking for. The Patristic teaching shows a world significantly different enough that it cannot fit into the uniformitarian scheme.

Click to expand...

What did humans and animals eat if plants couldn't die?