A Question to the Creationists

[jckstraw72]

I'd like to see a quote that insists there was no physical death -- and which is quite explicit as applying to plants/animals/etc.

Are you of the opinion that the plants that Adam and Eve ate did not die when they ate them?

The Wisdom of Solomon 1:13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. 14 For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth:

And the animals are named wild beasts [qhria], from their being hunted [qhreuesqai], not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first--for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good,--but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them. For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him . . . so in like manner it came to pass, that in the case of man's sin, he being master, all that was subject to him sinned with him. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness. Theophilus to Autolycus Book II.XVII

God did not, as some people think, just give Paradise to our ancestor at the beginning, nor did He make only Paradise incorruptible. No! Instead, He did much more . . . 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. St. Symeon the New Theologian, Ethical Discourses 1.1, in On the Mystical Life, vol. 1, p. 21

[God] wills to hold it [Paradise] out to us as a type of the indissoluble life to come, an icon of the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. If this were not the case, then the Garden, too, would have had to be cursed, since it was the scene of the transgression. However, God does not do this, but instead curses the whole rest of the earth which, as we have said, was incorruptible just like Paradise, and produced fruit of its own accord. St. Symeon, Ethical Discourses 1.2

Doubtless indeed vultures did not look around the earth when living things came to be. For nothing yet died of these things given meaning or brought into being by God, so that vultures might eat it. Nature was not divided, for it was in its prime; nor did hunters kill, for that not yet the custom of human beings; nor did wild beasts claw their prey, for they were not yet carnivores. And it is customary for vultures to feed on corpses, but since there were not yet corpses, nor yet their stench, so there was not yet such food for vultures. But all followed the diet of swans and all grazed the meadows. St. Basil the Great, On the Origin of Humanity 2.6

The earth, created, adorned, blessed by God, did not have any deficiencies. It was overflowing with refinement. "God saw," after the completion of the whole creation of the world, "everything that He had made: and, behold, it was very good." (Gen. 1:31).
Now the earth is presented to our eyes in a completely different look. We do not know her condition in holy virginity; we know her in the condition of corruption and accursedness, we know her already sentenced to burning; she was created for eternity. . . . Plants were not subjected either to decay or to diseases; both decay and diseases and the weeds themselves, appeared after the alteration of the earth following the fall of man . . . According to its creation, there was on it only the splendid, only the wholesome, there was only that which was suitable for the immortal and blessed life of its inhabitants . . . The beasts and other animals lived in perfect harmony among themselves, nourishing themselves on plant life. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Homily on Man

The beautiful things of this world are only hints of that beauty with which the first-created world was filled, as Adam and Eve saw it. That beauty was destroyed by the sin of the first people . . . Thus also did the fall into sin of the first people destroy the beauty of God's world, and there remain to us only fragments of it by which we may judge concerning the primordial beauty. Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, pg. 468

In not wishing to be nourished by Him [God], the first man rightly fell away from the Divine life, and took death as another parent. Accordingly he put on himself the irrational form, and blackened the inconceivable beauty of the Divine, and delivered over the whole of nature as food for death. Death is living on this through the whole of this temporal period, making us his food. St. Maximus, Ambiguum 10.

What I am saying is that in the beginning sin seduced Adam and persuaded him to transgress God's commandment, whereby sin gave rise to pleasure and, by means of this pleasure, nailed itself in Adam to the very depths of our nature, thus condemning our whole human nature to death and, via humanity, pressing the nature of (all) created beings toward mortal extinction. St. Maximus, Ad Thalassium 6.1

The creation of all things is due to God, but corruption came in afterwards due to our wickedness and as a punishment and a help. "For God did not make death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things" (Wisdom 1:13). But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam's transgression, in like manner as all other punishments. St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition 2.28

Commenting on Romans 8:20: What is the meaning of "the creation was made subject to futility"? That it became corruptible. For what cause, and on what account? On account of you, O man. For since you took a body mortal and subject to suffering, so also the earth received a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 14.

He [the Apostle Paul] discourses concerning creation's bondage, an shows for whose sake such a thing has occurred -- and he places the blame on us. What then? In suffering these things on account of another, has creation been maltreated? By no means, for it has come into being for my sake. So then, how could that which has come into being for my sake be unjustly treated in suffering those things for my correction? St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 14

What armed death against the cosmos? The fact that one man tasted of the tree only. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 10.

It is said that when the world was first created it was not subject to flux and corruption. According to Scripture it was only later corrupted and "made subject to futility" -- that is, to man -- not by its own choice but by the will of Him to whom it is subject, the expectation being that Adam, who had fallen into corruption, would be restored to his original state. St. Gregory of Sinai, On Commandments and Doctrines 11

Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature . . . It is fitting, therefore, that the creation itself, being restored to its primeval condition, should without restraint be under the dominion of the righteous; and the apostle has made this plain in the Epistle to the Romans, when he thus speaks: “For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature has been subjected to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope; since the creature itself shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.” St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.32.1

For the creation was made subject to futility, [St. Paul] says, and he expects that it will be set free from such servitude, as he intends to call this world by the name of creation. For it is not what is unseen [the angelic world] but what is seen that is subject to corruption. The creation, then, after being restored to a better and more seemly state, remains, rejoicing and exulting over the children of God at the resurrection; for whose sake it now groans and travails, waiting itself also for our redemption from the corruption of the body, that, when when we have risen and shaken off the mortality of the flesh . . . and have been set free from sin, it also shall be freed from corruption and be subject no longer to futility, but to righteousness. St. Methodios of Olympus and Patara, Discourse on the Resurrection, ANF, vol. 6, p. 366

The fate of visible nature has, from the beginning of its existence, been under the power of the influence of man . . . Organically and mystically connected with man as with a God-like creature of God, nature in the essence of its life depends upon man and always moves strictly commensurately with man. When man chose the path of sin and death as his path through history, all of nature, as the results of its inner dependency on man, followed after him. The fall of man was at the same time the fall of nature, and the curse of man became the curse of nature. And from that time man and nature, like two inseparable twins, blinded by one and the same darkness, deadened by one and the same death, burdened by one and the same curse, go hand in hand through history, through the abysmal wilderness of sin and evil. Together they stumble, together they fall, and together they arise, ceaselessly striving toward the distant conclusion of their sorrowful history. St. Justin Popvich, The Orthodox Philosophy of Truth: The Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church vol. 3 p. 792

Adam was placed as lord and king of all the creatures . . . And so, when he was taken captive, the creation which ministered to and served him was taken captive together with him. For through him death came to reign over every soul. St. Macarius the Great, Homilies 11.5

"Death is not natural; rather it is unnatural. And death is not from nature; rather it is against nature. All of nature in horror cries out: "I do not know death! I do not wish death! I am afraid of death! I strive against death!" Death is an uninvited stranger in nature . . . Even when one hundred philosophers declare that "death is natural!" all of nature trembles in indignation and shouts: " No! I have no use for death! It is an uninvited stranger!" And the voice of nature is not sophistry. The protest of nature against death outweighs all excuses thought up to justify death. And if there is something that nature struggles to express in its untouched harmony, doing so without exception in a unison of voices, then it is a protest against death. It is its unanimous, frantic, and heaven-shaking elegy of death. St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Selected Writings

Paradise, even heaven itself, is accessible to man; and the creation, both of the world and above the world, which long ago was set at variance with itself, is fit together in friendship; and we men are made to join in the angels' song, offering the worship of their praise to God. St. Gregory of Nyssa, A Sermon for the Feast of the Lights

Look at the total result: how fruitful was the Word! God issued His fiat, and it was done: God also saw that it was good; not as if He were ignorant of the good until He saw it; but because it was good, He therefore saw it, and honoured it, and set His seal upon it; and consummated the goodness of His works by His vouchsafing to them that contemplation. Thus God blessed what He made good, in order that He might commend Himself to you as whole and perfect, good both in word and act. As yet the Word knew no malediction, because He was a stranger to malefaction. We shall see what reasons required this also of God. Meanwhile the world consisted of all things good, plainly foreshowing how much good was preparing for him for whom all this was provided. Who indeed was so worthy of dwelling amongst the works of God, as he who was His own image and likeness? Tertullian, Against Marcion 2.4

As long as Adam loved God and observed His commandment, he dwelt in the Paradise of God and God abode in the paradisiacal heart of Adam. Naked Adam was clothed with the grace of God and, surrounded by the animals, he held and caressed them lovingly, and they, in turn, licked him devoutly, as their Master. When Adam violated God's commandment., he was stripped of the grace of God, clothed with a garment of skin and exiled from Paradise. Grace-filled Adam became wild, and many animals, because of Adam, were also made savage, and instead of approaching him with devoutness and licking him with love, they lashed out at him with rage in order to tear at or bite him. Elder Paisios, Epistles, pg. 203-204

Behold the life of innocent Adam in Eden, the lordship of man over creation, which together with us groans because of our fall and thirsts to be delivered into the "liberty of the children of God" (Rom. 8:21). The Life of St. Paul of Obnora, in the Northern Thebaid



yes, the plants that Adam and Eve ate did not die. i cant explain it bc the pre-fallen world is totally beyond our experience -- its not something we can presently comprehend, but i absolutely believe that God is not the author of death.

I am not, here, concerned with whether evolution is defensible. I am more concerned with the interpretation of Scripture.

The quotes that you have supplied defend creationism in the broadest sense. It is a sense that would include Theistic Evolutionists. Is creation-in-an-instant really more similar to six-day creation than 14 billion year creation? Two of them take the days as figurative-only.

creation in one instant is of course far more similar to six-day creation. whether the 6 days be 6 literal days or one instant the earth comes out to be about 6 or 7,000 years old -- only a 6 day difference in age between the 2! obviously not enough time for evolution. and St. Augustine and Origen are the only ones I know of that interpret the days as one instant --- and of course it is precisely Origen's views on Genesis that have marred his reputation! on the other hand, i have a file that contains 30 Orthodox sources interpreting the days literally --- and many of them are from the first millennium of the Church, so theyre applicable for not only Orthodox Christians.

 

[Willtor]

...

Note: Sorry, CF told me my post was too long. Let readers of my post refer to the one cited.

Of the passages you have cited that are relevant to our discussion, some of them distinguish plant from animal, insofar as eating. Why would they do this if they thought that eating did not imply death? Why do you do this?

Perhaps I am wrong and perhaps they believed that eating plants did not cause the plants to die. But you must understand what kind of pressure it puts on the interpretation when one goes on to distinguish plant from animal in this way. I think the fact that they made the distinction indicates that they believed that what is eaten, dies, so that its nutrients can nourish the body of the one who eats.

creation in one instant is of course far more similar to six-day creation. whether the 6 days be 6 literal days or one instant the earth comes out to be about 6 or 7,000 years old -- only a 6 day difference in age between the 2! obviously not enough time for evolution. and St. Augustine and Origen are the only ones I know of that interpret the days as one instant --- and of course it is precisely Origen's views on Genesis that have marred his reputation! on the other hand, i have a file that contains 30 Orthodox sources interpreting the days literally --- and many of them are from the first millennium of the Church, so theyre applicable for not only Orthodox Christians.

I say the ratio between TE and YEC is less than that of YEC and St. Augustine, and, further, that few modern creationists could stomach St. Augustine's take on Genesis any more than that of Theistic Evolutionists. Besides which, most creationists would criticize even the ancient literal interpretations.

As to Origen, I think his hierarchical understanding of the Trinity has more to do with his posthumous condemnation than whether the days were instantaneous.

Last, I don't doubt that there are many sources that interpret the days literally. This is not my contention. But since you raise the point, I wonder how many are those literal interpretations with which you agree (more or less)?

 

[jckstraw72]

Note: Sorry, CF told me my post was too long. Let readers of my post refer to the one cited.

Of the passages you have cited that are relevant to our discussion, some of them distinguish plant from animal, insofar as eating. Why would they do this if they thought that eating did not imply death? Why do you do this?

which quotes are you thinking of here -- i dont have much more time online tonight to read through them again, but i can look again tomorrow prolly.

Last, I don't doubt that there are many sources that interpret the days literally. This is not my contention. But since you raise the point, I wonder how many are those literal interpretations with which you agree (more or less)?

not sure what youre getting at --- i agree with all of them from what i have read. they speak in unison.

 

[Willtor]

which quotes are you thinking of here -- i dont have much more time online tonight to read through them again, but i can look again tomorrow prolly.

No problem.

Let's discuss the following:

Doubtless indeed vultures did not look around the earth when living things came to be. For nothing yet died of these things given meaning or brought into being by God, so that vultures might eat it. Nature was not divided, for it was in its prime; nor did hunters kill, for that not yet the custom of human beings; nor did wild beasts claw their prey, for they were not yet carnivores. And it is customary for vultures to feed on corpses, but since there were not yet corpses, nor yet their stench, so there was not yet such food for vultures. But all followed the diet of swans and all grazed the meadows. St. Basil the Great, On the Origin of Humanity 2.6

Why does St. Basil distinguish eating plants from eating animals? He is quite explicit about it. If, indeed, the plants did not die when eaten, what is the purpose of distinguishing sources of food?

not sure what youre getting at --- i agree with all of them from what i have read. they speak in unison.

St. Basil the Great wrote a book on creation called, Hexaemeron, with which I think you would find yourself quite at odds. Don't misunderstand -- there are generalities with which I think we both agree. But basically all of the specifics are untenable, today. He argued what was meant, from verse to verse, in terms of his natural philosophy which nobody holds, anymore.

 

[jckstraw72]

ok, i thought you were simply asking if i agreed when the Fathers interpreted the length of the six days literally -- i havent read all of St. Basil's Hexameron, but overall I found it very good. The Fathers at times would use the scientific knowledge of their day to illustrate theological points (St. Clement of Rome points to the phoenix as an analogy for the Resurrection), and of course the specifics of what they say can be wrong, but nonetheless, it made the point for those reading in their time. When it comes to specific interpretation of Scripture and matters that are of theological import, I don't know of any disagreements I would have with St. Basil.

and i see what you are saying about his distinction between animal and plant food -- not sure why he is making the distinction. i still dont believe he would say that plants died, since the Fathers are pretty adamant that the fate of the entire creation is bound up with the fate of man. there was a Saint (perhaps St. Euphrosynos ...) who visited Paradise (much like St. Paul), and said that the plants do not die, in the way that we would think of it. im forgetting the details, ill have to see if i can find it again. it all comes back to the passage from the Wisdom of Solomon --- God does not desire the death of anything He created, thus He created all in a state of immortality.

 

[Willtor]

ok, i thought you were simply asking if i agreed when the Fathers interpreted the length of the six days literally -- i havent read all of St. Basil's Hexameron, but overall I found it very good. The Fathers at times would use the scientific knowledge of their day to illustrate theological points (St. Clement of Rome points to the phoenix as an analogy for the Resurrection), and of course the specifics of what they say can be wrong, but nonetheless, it made the point for those reading in their time. When it comes to specific interpretation of Scripture and matters that are of theological import, I don't know of any disagreements I would have with St. Basil.

This is more significant than St. Clement's analogy of a phoenix. He made an analogy because it was useful to his point.

St. Basil was not using analogies at all. He was giving the meaning of the creation account, as he understood it. To him, the idea that creatures emerge from the earth was precisely what Genesis was describing. I am by no means belittling St. Basil (any more than I would St. Clement). Rather, I mean to draw attention to the variety of literal interpretations. I attribute them not the movement of God and increased revelation, but to the ever-changing understanding of man as regards nature.

You may be surprised to hear, but there are Theistic Evolutionists who hold (and have held) that evolution is described in the Bible. This was especially true near the beginning of the 20th century. Evolution was the breakthrough in human understanding about prehistory, and they managed to find it in the creation account. In the 1960s, or thereabouts, the young-earth creationist movement began to pick up speed, applying its own understanding of prehistory to the meaning of Genesis. St. Basil, by his own interpretation of creation, shows us that this was always the tendency of literal interpretations.

Perhaps there is a correct literal interpretation. But why is this generation sufficiently privileged to know it when fathers like St. Basil the Great did not?

and i see what you are saying about his distinction between animal and plant food -- not sure why he is making the distinction. i still dont believe he would say that plants died, since the Fathers are pretty adamant that the fate of the entire creation is bound up with the fate of man. there was a Saint (perhaps St. Euphrosynos ...) who visited Paradise (much like St. Paul), and said that the plants do not die, in the way that we would think of it. im forgetting the details, ill have to see if i can find it again. it all comes back to the passage from the Wisdom of Solomon --- God does not desire the death of anything He created, thus He created all in a state of immortality.

Clearly, though, we cannot read that anything was immortal in itself. Else, the Tree of Life would be redundant.

 

[jckstraw72]

This is more significant than St. Clement's analogy of a phoenix. He made an analogy because it was useful to his point.

St. Basil was not using analogies at all. He was giving the meaning of the creation account, as he understood it. To him, the idea that creatures emerge from the earth was precisely what Genesis was describing. I am by no means belittling St. Basil (any more than I would St. Clement). Rather, I mean to draw attention to the variety of literal interpretations. I attribute them not the movement of God and increased revelation, but to the ever-changing understanding of man as regards nature.

You may be surprised to hear, but there are Theistic Evolutionists who hold (and have held) that evolution is described in the Bible. This was especially true near the beginning of the 20th century. Evolution was the breakthrough in human understanding about prehistory, and they managed to find it in the creation account. In the 1960s, or thereabouts, the young-earth creationist movement began to pick up speed, applying its own understanding of prehistory to the meaning of Genesis. St. Basil, by his own interpretation of creation, shows us that this was always the tendency of literal interpretations.

Perhaps there is a correct literal interpretation. But why is this generation sufficiently privileged to know it when fathers like St. Basil the Great did not?



Clearly, though, we cannot read that anything was immortal in itself. Else, the Tree of Life would be redundant.

1. im not understanding what the problem is with St. Basil's interpretation -- the Scriptures say that God commanded the earth to bring forth IIRC ...
2. im not sure St. Basil DIDNT know the correct interpretation --- his work is pretty much the standard ... St. Gregory the Theologian said when he reads it, it is so sublime that it brings him closer to God, and St. Ambrose also based his Hexameron on St. Basil's, and St. Gregory of Nyssa also praises his brother, St. Basil, in his own Hexameron.
3. true, things dont have life in and of themselves -- they are sustained by God Who is the source of all life. i should clarify, they were technically created in an in-between state --- they were immortal as they long as they continued sinless, but they had the capacity to sin and thus the capacity to die. so it was kinda like, which way will they choose to go --- to life or death? but from their creation they were naturally headed towards eternal life, since sin is unnatural to us, and thus death is unnatural to us.

 

[Willtor]

1. im not understanding what the problem is with St. Basil's interpretation -- the Scriptures say that God commanded the earth to bring forth IIRC ...
2. im not sure St. Basil DIDNT know the correct interpretation --- his work is pretty much the standard ... St. Gregory the Theologian said when he reads it, it is so sublime that it brings him closer to God, and St. Ambrose also based his Hexameron on St. Basil's, and St. Gregory of Nyssa also praises his brother, St. Basil, in his own Hexameron.

Questions 1 & 2 are related, so I'll discuss both at the same time.

He interprets it as natural spontaneous generation of life. This is a property of the Earth, and the passage (as he understands it) is saying that this property is ordained by God:

"Let the earth bring forth thee living creature." Behold the word of God pervading creation, beginning even then the efficacy which is seen displayed to-day, and will be displayed to the end of the world! As a ball, which one pushes, if it meet a declivity, descends, carried by its form and the nature of the ground and does not stop until it has reached a level surface; so nature, once put in motion by the Divine command, traverses creation with an equal step, through birth and death, and keeps up the succession of kinds through resemblance, to the last. Nature always makes a horse succeed to a horse, a lion to a lion, an eagle to an eagle, and preserving each animal by these uninterrupted successions she transmits it to the end of all things. Animals do not see their peculiarities destroyed or effaced by any length of time; their nature, as though it had been just constituted, follows the course of ages, for ever young. "Let the earth bring forth the living creature." This command has continued and earth does not cease to obey the Creator. For, if there are creatures which are successively produced by their predecessors, there are others that even to-day we see born from the earth itself. In wet weather she brings forth grasshoppers and an immense number of insects which fly in the air and have no names because they are so small; she also produces mice and frogs. In the environs of Thebes in Egypt, after abundant rain in hot weather, the country is covered with field mice. We see mud alone produce eels; they do not proceed from an egg, nor in any other manner; it is the earth alone which gives them birth. Let the earth produce a living creature." (Hexaemeron, Homily IX, ch. 2)

Naturally, the literalists among the Theistic Evolutionists take (and have taken) it to mean that abiogenesis is a property of the Universe ordained by God. I agree with the conclusion, but not that the passage is saying it except in the most general sense -- the sense in which I agree with St. Basil, here, as well.

3. true, things dont have life in and of themselves -- they are sustained by God Who is the source of all life. i should clarify, they were technically created in an in-between state --- they were immortal as they long as they continued sinless, but they had the capacity to sin and thus the capacity to die. so it was kinda like, which way will they choose to go --- to life or death? but from their creation they were naturally headed towards eternal life, since sin is unnatural to us, and thus death is unnatural to us.

I also think that God is the source of all life. For this reason, I think the Tree of Life is a figure of God's Word. Physical food can keep us from dying, but only the Word can really give us Life. So it was also for our ancestors before they fell. This is why the Tree appears in Revelation, and why its leaves bring healing to the nations.

 

[jckstraw72]

ah okee i see what youre saying now, forgive my ignorance! it does seem that St. Basil is indeed applying the Scripture inaccurately ... i think i need to make some time to read the entirety of the Hexameron. but off the top of my head i will say, that although St. Basil's work has historically been the standard on the subject, no one Father is the source of Tradition/truth ... i dont know what the other Fathers would say on this specific point. where they agree we see the working of the Holy Spirit, and if they disagree on some points, we know that it is then from the person rather than from God. anyhoo, interesting point, ill have to think about this ...

 

[Willtor]

ah okee i see what youre saying now, forgive my ignorance! it does seem that St. Basil is indeed applying the Scripture inaccurately ... i think i need to make some time to read the entirety of the Hexameron. but off the top of my head i will say, that although St. Basil's work has historically been the standard on the subject, no one Father is the source of Tradition/truth ... i dont know what the other Fathers would say on this specific point. where they agree we see the working of the Holy Spirit, and if they disagree on some points, we know that it is then from the person rather than from God. anyhoo, interesting point, ill have to think about this ...

Of course, you're absolutely right -- no one father singularly represents tradition. And, as I said before, I certainly don't mean to disparage St. Basil the Great.

However, the father that has most influenced my thinking on Genesis is St. Athanasius of Alexandria. You may have already read the following, but if not I'd highly recommend them: "Against the Gentiles" and "A Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word." His discussion of the fall in the former is magnificent.

 

[jckstraw72]

ive read On the Incarnation, but its been a while, but ill have to look into St. Athanasius more!

 

[Kristin E]

1) Is believing in Creationism essential to salvation on the cross? If so, how? Please cite Biblical scripture. Genesis 1

2) Why do creationists not cut off their eyes and hands when they sin? Some do actually... Look up acts of Christian mutilation.

3) Why do you think evolution is a tool of the devil? Where does it say this in scripture? I don't think Evolution is the Devils tool... I just know God made us man not monkey.

 

[jckstraw72]

1) Is believing in Creationism essential to salvation on the cross? If so, how? Please cite Biblical scripture. Genesis 1

2) Why do creationists not cut off their eyes and hands when they sin? Some do actually... Look up acts of Christian mutilation.

3) Why do you think evolution is a tool of the devil? Where does it say this in scripture? I don't think Evolution is the Devils tool... I just know God made us man not monkey.

1. i dont believe that believing in evolution will prevent someone from salvation, but i do believe creationism is essential to maintaining orthodox theology, and if theology gets off-base that can lead ppl away from God.
2. some parts of the Bible are literal, others arent ... thats where the Tradition of the Church comes in -- to illumine such passages for us
3. i think its a tool of the devil bc it is a creation-myth that ppl of all faiths are coming to believe in, which lends itself nicely to the one-world religion that the Anti-Christ will usher in. i cant say it will definitely happen that way but it seems like an open-door for not-goodness to me. also, if evolution is true then death is a natural part of the world, and NOT our enemy, which makes Christ's bodily Resurrection completely meaningless. why did He defeat death if He actually created it and called it good in the beginning?! it turns the Gospel on its head.

 

[Assyrian]

1. i dont believe that believing in evolution will prevent someone from salvation, but i do believe creationism is essential to maintaining orthodox theology, and if theology gets off-base that can lead ppl away from God.
2. some parts of the Bible are literal, others arent ... thats where the Tradition of the Church comes in -- to illumine such passages for us
3. i think its a tool of the devil bc it is a creation-myth that ppl of all faiths are coming to believe in, which lends itself nicely to the one-world religion that the Anti-Christ will usher in. i cant say it will definitely happen that way but it seems like an open-door for not-goodness to me. also, if evolution is true then death is a natural part of the world, and NOT our enemy, which makes Christ's bodily Resurrection completely meaningless. why did He defeat death if He actually created it and called it good in the beginning?! it turns the Gospel on its head.

Why did he defeat Satan if he created him? God called the guardian cherub of Eden (Ezek 28:13&14) "the signet of perfection" verse 12, and, "blameless in your ways from the day you were created", verse 15. God called the human race 'very good' too, yet we too became the enemies of God. Something created good can become God's enemy through sin. The same chapter where Paul tells us death is the enemy, 1Cor 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death, he also tells us, 1Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. The death that is the enemy of God is one that has the sting of sin and the power of the law. Is there any reason to think death was an enemy before it had power and a sting, before it was changed and corrupted by sin?

 

[jckstraw72]

Why did he defeat Satan if he created him? God called the guardian cherub of Eden (Ezek 28:13&14) "the signet of perfection" verse 12, and, "blameless in your ways from the day you were created", verse 15. God called the human race 'very good' too, yet we too became the enemies of God. Something created good can become God's enemy through sin. The same chapter where Paul tells us death is the enemy, 1Cor 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death, he also tells us, 1Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. The death that is the enemy of God is one that has the sting of sin and the power of the law. Is there any reason to think death was an enemy before it had power and a sting, before it was changed and corrupted by sin?

well what about death changed that made it our enemy if it wasnt before? either way its the ending of a life ... and the reason to believe it was our enemy even before sin is that that is the historical faith of all Christians. Christ defeated not only spiritual death, but also physical death. death will be abolished, but humans and Satan, who became evil, will not be abolished, bc they are purposefully meant to exist. death is not meant to exist and thus it will one day not exist, but humans and Satan will always exist.

 

[shernren]

well what about death changed that made it our enemy if it wasnt before? either way its the ending of a life ... and the reason to believe it was our enemy even before sin is that that is the historical faith of all Christians. Christ defeated not only spiritual death, but also physical death. death will be abolished, but humans and Satan, who became evil, will not be abolished, bc they are purposefully meant to exist. death is not meant to exist and thus it will one day not exist, but humans and Satan will always exist.

I have friends with peanut allergies. I can eat peanuts but they can't. What about peanuts changes that makes them my friends' enemies, but not mine?

I hope the analogy is clear. On some level it is presumption to describe the mind of God, but death looks suspiciously like a way to clear this physical world, with its physical limits, of the otherwise infinite number of physical bodies that would develop should physical beings reproduce indefinitely.

Does death scare Christians? It shouldn't. This is a clear indication that death itself should hold no fear for the Christian, and therefore that perhaps death held no fear for those who walked in perfect communion with God before the Fall. But sin gives us "death allergy": sin can take death, benign mechanism that it was, and twist it so that it robs human life of all purpose.

Will we eat peanuts in heaven? There's an awful lot about wine and meat and bread but no peanuts. But that doesn't mean peanuts are bad; it just means they're earthly. That there will be no death in heaven may not mean that death is bad; it may just mean that death is earthly. And after all, even the Sovereign Lord has clearly used death before as a means of escape for the innocent:

'Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every last male in Israel--slave or free. I will burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung, until it is all gone. Dogs will eat those belonging to Jeroboam who die in the city, and the birds of the air will feed on those who die in the country. The LORD has spoken!'

As for you, go back home. When you set foot in your city, the boy will die. All Israel will mourn for him and bury him. He is the only one belonging to Jeroboam who will be buried, because he is the only one in the house of Jeroboam in whom the LORD, the God of Israel, has found anything good.
[1Ki 14:10-13 NIV]

 

[jckstraw72]

hey Willtor, if youre still checking this, here's the quotes i was thinking of regarding food in paradise. Several Fathers taught that food did not decay, and that therefore man also did not void any bodily waste before the fall:

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection
But in that form of life, of which God Himself was the Creator, it is reasonable to believe that there was neither age nor infancy nor any of the sufferings arising from our present various infirmities, nor any kind of bodily affliction whatever. It is reasonable, I say, to believe that God was the Creator of none of these things, but that man was a thing divine before his humanity got within reach of the assault of evil; that then, however, with the inroad of evil, all these afflictions also broke in upon him . . . Just so our nature, becoming passional, had to encounter all the necessary results of a life of passion: but when it shall have started back to that state of passionless blessedness, it will no longer encounter the inevitable results of evil tendencies. Seeing, then, that all the infusions of the life of the brute into our nature were not in us before our humanity descended through the touch of evil into passions, most certainly, when we abandon those passions, we shall abandon all their visible results. No one, therefore, will be justified in seeking in that other life for the consequences in us of any passion. Just as if a man, who, clad in a ragged tunic, has divested himself of the garb, feels no more its disgrace upon him, so we too, when we have cast off that dead unsightly tunic made from the skins of brutes and put upon us (for I take the “coats of skins” to mean that conformation belonging to a brute nature with which we were clothed when we became familiar with passionate indulgence), shall, along with the casting off of that tunic, fling from us all the belongings that were round us of that skin of a brute; and such accretions are sexual intercourse, conception, parturition, impurities, suckling, feeding, evacuation, gradual growth to full size, prime of life, old age, disease, and death. If that skin is no longer round us, how can its resulting consequences be left behind within us? It is folly, then, when we are to expect a different state of things in the life to come, to object to the doctrine of the Resurrection on the ground of something that has nothing to do with it.

St. Symeon the New Theologian, Ethical Discourses 1.1
Notice that it is nowhere written, “God created paradise,” or that he said “let it be and it was,” but instead that He “planted” it, and “made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” [Gen. 2:8-9], bearing every kind and variety of fruit, fruit which is never spoiled or lacking but always fresh and ripe, full of sweetness, and providing our ancestors with indescribable pleasure and enjoyment. For their immortal bodies had to be supplied with incorruptible food.
1.4
This is the reason why, when God saw from before the creation of the world that Adam would be saved through re-birth, He subjected creation to him, and put it under a curse so that, having been created for the sake of man who had fallen into corruption, it should itself become corrupt and provide him annually with corrupted food. . . . Which is to say that creation was not of itself subjected to humanity, nor was it willingly changed over to corruption and made to bear perishable fruits and to sprout thorns and thistles, but as obedient to God’s command Who ordered these things, and with the hope of a restoration.

St. Gregory of Sinai, On Commandments and Doctrines
8. Man is created incorruptible, without bodily humours, and thus he will be when resurrected. Yet he is not created either immutable or mutable, since he possesses the power to choose at will whether to be subject to change or not. But the will cannot confer total immutability of nature upon him. Such immutability is bestowed only when he has attained the state of changeless deification.
9. Corruption is generated by the flesh. To feed, to excrete, to stride about and to sleep . . . [we acquired] these characteristics through the fall, we have become beast-like, losing the natural blessings bestowed on us by God. We have become brutal instead of spiritually intelligent, ferine instead of godlike.
10. Paradise is twofold – sensible and spiritual: there is the paradise of Eden and the paradise of grace. The paradise of Eden is so exalted that it is said to extend to the third heaven. It has been planted by God with every kind of sweet-scented plant . . . Created between corruption and incorruption, it is always rich in fruits, ripe and unripe, and continually full of flowers. When trees and ripe fruit rot and fall to the ground they turn into sweet-scented soil, free from the smell of decay exuded by the vegetable-matter of this world. That is because of the great richness and holiness of the grace ever abounding there.

St. Maximus the Confessor relays the same idea in his Ambiguum 10, although I could not track this one down to copy it out.

 

[Willtor]

hey Willtor, if youre still checking this, here's the quotes i was thinking of regarding food in paradise. Several Fathers taught that food did not decay, and that therefore man also did not void any bodily waste before the fall:

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection
But in that form of life, of which God Himself was the Creator, it is reasonable to believe that there was neither age nor infancy nor any of the sufferings arising from our present various infirmities, nor any kind of bodily affliction whatever. It is reasonable, I say, to believe that God was the Creator of none of these things, but that man was a thing divine before his humanity got within reach of the assault of evil; that then, however, with the inroad of evil, all these afflictions also broke in upon him . . . Just so our nature, becoming passional, had to encounter all the necessary results of a life of passion: but when it shall have started back to that state of passionless blessedness, it will no longer encounter the inevitable results of evil tendencies. Seeing, then, that all the infusions of the life of the brute into our nature were not in us before our humanity descended through the touch of evil into passions, most certainly, when we abandon those passions, we shall abandon all their visible results. No one, therefore, will be justified in seeking in that other life for the consequences in us of any passion. Just as if a man, who, clad in a ragged tunic, has divested himself of the garb, feels no more its disgrace upon him, so we too, when we have cast off that dead unsightly tunic made from the skins of brutes and put upon us (for I take the “coats of skins” to mean that conformation belonging to a brute nature with which we were clothed when we became familiar with passionate indulgence), shall, along with the casting off of that tunic, fling from us all the belongings that were round us of that skin of a brute; and such accretions are sexual intercourse, conception, parturition, impurities, suckling, feeding, evacuation, gradual growth to full size, prime of life, old age, disease, and death. If that skin is no longer round us, how can its resulting consequences be left behind within us? It is folly, then, when we are to expect a different state of things in the life to come, to object to the doctrine of the Resurrection on the ground of something that has nothing to do with it.

St. Symeon the New Theologian, Ethical Discourses 1.1
Notice that it is nowhere written, “God created paradise,” or that he said “let it be and it was,” but instead that He “planted” it, and “made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” [Gen. 2:8-9], bearing every kind and variety of fruit, fruit which is never spoiled or lacking but always fresh and ripe, full of sweetness, and providing our ancestors with indescribable pleasure and enjoyment. For their immortal bodies had to be supplied with incorruptible food.
1.4
This is the reason why, when God saw from before the creation of the world that Adam would be saved through re-birth, He subjected creation to him, and put it under a curse so that, having been created for the sake of man who had fallen into corruption, it should itself become corrupt and provide him annually with corrupted food. . . . Which is to say that creation was not of itself subjected to humanity, nor was it willingly changed over to corruption and made to bear perishable fruits and to sprout thorns and thistles, but as obedient to God’s command Who ordered these things, and with the hope of a restoration.

St. Gregory of Sinai, On Commandments and Doctrines
8. Man is created incorruptible, without bodily humours, and thus he will be when resurrected. Yet he is not created either immutable or mutable, since he possesses the power to choose at will whether to be subject to change or not. But the will cannot confer total immutability of nature upon him. Such immutability is bestowed only when he has attained the state of changeless deification.
9. Corruption is generated by the flesh. To feed, to excrete, to stride about and to sleep . . . [we acquired] these characteristics through the fall, we have become beast-like, losing the natural blessings bestowed on us by God. We have become brutal instead of spiritually intelligent, ferine instead of godlike.
10. Paradise is twofold – sensible and spiritual: there is the paradise of Eden and the paradise of grace. The paradise of Eden is so exalted that it is said to extend to the third heaven. It has been planted by God with every kind of sweet-scented plant . . . Created between corruption and incorruption, it is always rich in fruits, ripe and unripe, and continually full of flowers. When trees and ripe fruit rot and fall to the ground they turn into sweet-scented soil, free from the smell of decay exuded by the vegetable-matter of this world. That is because of the great richness and holiness of the grace ever abounding there.

St. Maximus the Confessor relays the same idea in his Ambiguum 10, although I could not track this one down to copy it out.

I see that they thought that nothing rotted at that time. This would be akin to things like thistles and such being created after the fall. However, none of them say that things don't die when you eat them. On the contrary, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory of Sinai both seem to think that our resurrected state will cease to feed at all. I can only suspect that this is because they recognize that to eat means to kill. That, I find a little troubling, though. Adam and Eve were told that they could eat. This was not too impure for them. And after his resurrection, Jesus ate.

 

[Phaedros]

First of all I don't think theistic evolutionists can be Christians, they are essentially deists. They don't think that God acts in Creation after the first act of Creation. Well what about Christ? God acted then did he not? Seems strange to me for a Christian to say something like that. I think that the overarching narrative of evolution is vastly wrong and pushed as pure fact to the public. Basically they claim to know more than they actually do. They claim to show how all life arises from, first, non-life and attempt to show how evolution can "act" against entropy because supposedly an open system is not affected by entropy or rather organization can increase in an open system. However, it's been shown that more energy into a system increases entropy.

Besides all that, the basic evolutionary mechanism, along with all of the other little add-ons which are variations of the basic principle of random mutations and natural selection, pretends to show how new structures can arise. However, this mechanism presupposes already existing, vastly complex structures.

It is also generates a degenerate philosophy based on materialistic assumptions. It explains God as a result of scared animals, or some such thing. It explains all culture as being based only on mutual consent. It claims that morality is only based on consensus. This can lead to all kinds of problems as should be apparent.

Here's what Plato said about such philosophies (not to mention bad science and distorted knowledge) 2300-2400 years ago:

"[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . these people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them . . . These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine [and note, Plato made it clear at the beginning of Bk X that he has serious doubts on the pantheon of Greek gods, but of course that is a very different thing from the question of the root of our being in Mind and Art]; and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [here, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . ." Plato, The Laws, Book X

What he's saying is that avant-garde (i.e. relativistic/materialistic) philosophers will ascribe the greatest of all things to chance and law and lower things to art. This, he says, leads to a morality that ultimately says that the highest right is might, or whatever the strong says it is.

Furthermore; Romans 1:18-25

"18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."

 

[shernren]

First of all I don't think theistic evolutionists can be Christians, they are essentially deists. They don't think that God acts in Creation after the first act of Creation. Well what about Christ? God acted then did he not? Seems strange to me for a Christian to say something like that. I think that the overarching narrative of evolution is vastly wrong and pushed as pure fact to the public. Basically they claim to know more than they actually do. They claim to show how all life arises from, first, non-life and attempt to show how evolution can "act" against entropy because supposedly an open system is not affected by entropy or rather organization can increase in an open system. However, it's been shown that more energy into a system increases entropy.

Besides all that, the basic evolutionary mechanism, along with all of the other little add-ons which are variations of the basic principle of random mutations and natural selection, pretends to show how new structures can arise. However, this mechanism presupposes already existing, vastly complex structures.

It is also generates a degenerate philosophy based on materialistic assumptions. It explains God as a result of scared animals, or some such thing. It explains all culture as being based only on mutual consent. It claims that morality is only based on consensus. This can lead to all kinds of problems as should be apparent.

That's absolutely right! Also:

The basics of reproductive science, along with all of the other little add-ons which are variations of the basic principle of random recombination and fertilization, pretends to show how new human beings can arise. However, this mechanism presupposes already existing, vastly complex humans.

It also generates a degenerate philosophy based on materialistic assumptions. It explains babies as a result of horny humans, or some such thing. It explains the production of human life as being based only on sex, and not even always with mutual consent. It claims that babies can only be made based on consensus between a man and a woman. This can lead to all kinds of problems as should be apparent.

Therefore, TrueChristians should not believe the lies of modern medical "science"! Instead, they should take the Bible literally when it declares that humans are "knitted together" in their mothers' wombs. Every human's conception and birth must be a miracle completely incomprehensible to science, or else God cannot take the glory for it.

After all, Christians who believe that natural processes can give rise to a human baby are essentially deists. They don't think that God acts in pregnancy after the first act of conception, when He inserts a human soul into the zygote (of course, since conception marks the start of human life, right?). God acted then he did not? Seems strange to me for a Christian to say something like that.

I think that the overarching narrative of prenatal development is vastly wrong and pushed as pure fact to the public. Basically they claim to know more than they actually do. They claim to show how a full-featured baby arises from, first, two simple cells, and attempt to show how a mother's womb can "act" against entropy because supposedly an open system is not affected by entropy or rather organization can increase in an open system. However, it's been shown that more energy into a system increases entropy, which means that scientifically speaking babies should simply fall apart inside their mothers' wombs as more nutrients are supplied to them, instead of growing to maturity. Science doesn't have an answer for how babies develop, because they are all MIRACULOUSLY KNITTED TOGETHER BY GOD!

[end parody]