Hopko and Schmemann?

[gzt]

Ok. I figured that was your belief based on your posts. That said, what is acceptable according to the Church today? I've always heard that there is a range of beliefs accepted (with TAW honestly being the exception to what I've heard).

There is indeed a wide range of beliefs accepted.

 

[jckstraw72]

It depends on what you mean by accepted. Sure, probably no one will withhold the chalice from you for being an evolutionist, so its acceptable in that sense. However, the saints living before Darwin unanimously interpret Genesis literally, and the saints living since Darwin unanimously reject theistic evolution, so in that sense, it's not acceptable, i.e. not Orthodox.

 

[All4Christ]

It depends on what you mean by accepted. Sure, probably no one will withhold the chalice from you for being an evolutionist, so its acceptable in that sense. However, the saints living before Darwin unanimously interpret Genesis literally, and the saints living since Darwin unanimously reject theistic evolution, so in that sense, it's not acceptable, i.e. not Orthodox.

There also are other options beyond YEC, Darwinism, and evolution.

Another thought...It seems like there shouldn't be priests actively teaching acceptance of evolution if it isn't an acceptable Orthodox option.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There also are other options beyond YEC, Darwinism, and evolution.

Another thought...It seems like there shouldn't be priests actively teaching acceptance of evolution if it isn't an acceptable Orthodox option.

that's something for the bishops to decide and handle.

 

[All4Christ]

that's something for the bishops to decide and handle.

True. As a layperson though, it seems that it is an "acceptable" position if the bishops don't condemn it or address it. If that isn't the case, it adds a lot of questions. We don't know all of the church fathers and saints' writings. I've trusted my spiritual father's direction on questionable topics. How else are we to determine what is or is not "Orthodox" when we have so much to learn? AFR for example is one of the sources many of us use.

I see some serious theological issues with Darwinism, especially with our view of original sin, but it is a question that goes beyond this topic into the various topics with a range of opinions.

Honest question here.

 

[All4Christ]

Coming from a very individualistic way of interpreting scripture before Orthodoxy, having the guidance of a spiritual father is very important. Next to that, articles on our jurisdictions' websites are very formative as they seem like they are authoritative. Often we are taught to follow what we are taught as obedience to our leaders. For example, frequency of the Eucharist, pre-communion prayers, and even things like vesperal and baptismal liturgies. (I personally disagree with them, as they aren't the traditional way to do them, but accept that our bishop approves them - so it is ok and good to participate). I certainly struggle with obedience. That said - how should we navigate our beliefs if that obedience and trust isn't correct?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

(Personally, I don't adhere to Darwinism, but I wouldn't be opposed to Old Earth Creationism. I'm not sure how everything worked exactly, but I know that it is an amazing fact that God created this World and that He created us, so I am happy and thankful knowing that, no matter the details). Most of what I've read outside of TAW in modern Orthodoxy, as well as my priest, says that Orthodoxy insists that God created the world, and that He intelligently designed the world, but they have not insisted on Young Earth Creationism. They even suggested that the Bible is not a science textbook, and that Orthodox Christianity didn't teach the fundamentalist YEC position was necessary. Please note that I am not making a statement of my beliefs here. I am just requesting clarification of your positions.

Evolution or Creation Science?

Evolution, Creation and the Hidden Cause - Glory to God for All Things

Hopko had an entire series on the issue that was amazing

This is the series I was able to find at Ancient Faith Radio - entitled Darwin and Christianity''

From what I've seen, be it St Basil "On the Six Days" or Gregory Nyssa, "Commentary on the Songs of Songs" or Origin "On First Principles", the consistent theology on Genesis it NOT modern literalism. I personally feel it'd be reading past what the Church Fathers say in order to come to the conclusion that they advocated YEC in the same way that YEC do today on all points. They believed in Instaneous Creation - but that had a very specific nuance. In many respects, one can go both ways when it comes to the issue of evolution and seeing what the Early Church has advocated on it....as they advocated for both symbolic and literal interpretations and allowed for progression of time impacting things (As noted before here, here and here and #277 when the issue came up ).

Then again, to be honest, part of me simply doesn't care as much on the issue as I used to since it doesn't seem to be something essential to following the Lord when it comes to arguing on the matter. It's definitely not a conversation that seems to come up often within the Global South (where issues of poverty/aiding impoverished and addressing economic injustices) or within the Middle East when it comes to the violence done by Radical Islamists or the political upheavels going on there. I may be off on the matter, but it does seem that the discussion is really one of luxury for us in the West to have when there's going back and forth...

I appreciated what another one noted elsewhere in another discussion on the issue:

Many of the fathers appear to have taken for granted the "common sense" science of their time. Take for instance the idea that the earth sits unmoving, supported by waters, at the center of the universe, and that the sun revolves around it . You can even find a few examples of Saints and early Christians supporting the idea that the earth is a flat round disk echoing early Jewish thought. You also might come across ideas physical or biological theories that no one would accept now a days too. I don't think being a Saint implies that a person has any special ability to judge such things. That's not what it's about imo. Most of the Fathers just didn't have access to the mountain of scientific evidence we have verifying evolution.

Here is a very small selection of the geocentric, unmoving earth, sun revolving around earth quotes I've seen to use one example:

St Athanasius: but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the center of the universe. (Against the Heathen, Book I, Part I)


St Athenagoras: to Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a center (Why the Christians do not Offer Sacrifices, Ch XIII)

ST Basil: There are inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth…It is not, they go on, without reason or by chance that the earth occupies the center of the universe…Do not then be surprised that the world never falls: it occupies the center of the universe, its natural place. By necessity it is obliged to remain in its place, unless a movement contrary to nature should displace it. If there is anything in this system which might appear probable to you, keep your admiration for the source of such perfect order, for the wisdom of God. Grand phenomena do not strike us the less when we have discovered something of their wonderful mechanism. Is it otherwise here? At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason. (Nine Homilies on the Hexameron, 10)

St Basil: It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. (Homilies, IX).

Of course, at the end of the day, it seems the rub for many is the way that you have many dominant voices in scientific fields (who do support evolutionary theory) saying how evolution HAD to play out in a very specific way - and while many voices discuss it peacefully or from a scientific perspective with adaptations over time, others discuss it from a dogmatic ideology. Christians look at those who are doing things from a dogmatic perspective and then assume any/all connections with evolutionary theory (or aspects of it like the earth being old or random mutation, etc.) HAVE to be equally dogmatic. When they see evolutionists saying there is no God, they assume others cannot be Christians believing in evolution.

People assume that saying mankind has evolved over the years in variation must somehow mean that there was no SPECIAL creation with Mankind (Adam and Eve) or that there was no Literal Adam if others were present.....as if others have to believe that there's no miraculous intervention by the Lord in the life/creation of man. That's really another issue.

Basically, it tends to be responses based on a perception of ideology rather than responses based on science/observational fact.

I've talked to teachers in academia before who may have believed in Evolution - yet they didn't feel that I as a Christian/theist automatically lacked reason to believe in other ways of explaining the world - and I've met others who were very antagonistic. And then I've also met others saying some very thought-provoking things when it comes to the issue of noting how scripture and science can reconcile when certain questions come up (like asking "How can billions of people come only from 2 people?" and so forth). And where I stand is summed up best in the following statement by another OEC:

Biblically, I have no problem with an old Earth and most of biological evolution (i.e. the science of evolution, not the flaky philosophy that athiests such as Dawkins attach to it). Biblically, I also believe in a real individual Adam who was in some very real sense​

With that said, I'm so thankful for the "Think 360: Biological Apologetics", as understanding on the physical world always impacts what we say or feel about the philosophical world we live in. One of the best presentations I've ever come across - and one can go here (Think 360: Biological Apologetics - YouTube ) for the entire presentation:

"God does not need defending, but people need to understand" and glad for others helping people live out what it means to be prepared to give an answer for why we believe what we believe....especially when it comes to biological ethics. Having a perspective from a theological and medical perspective since Dr. George Tadros does an amazing job bringing in his views as a doctor into the room when speaking on how Modern Science can be enjoyed the same way we enjoy our Creator. And I appreciate his perspective as an Orthodox Christian working with others within the Protestant world and noting the differences while also being clear on where both have connection in Christ

 

[gzt]

There also are other options beyond YEC, Darwinism, and evolution.

Another thought...It seems like there shouldn't be priests actively teaching acceptance of evolution if it isn't an acceptable Orthodox option.

Bishops as well teach it.

 

[gzt]

Literal young earth creationism is simply not the teaching of the Church. It is a teaching, but there are other options.

 

[ArmyMatt]

True. As a layperson though, it seems that it is an "acceptable" position if the bishops don't condemn it or address it. If that isn't the case, it adds a lot of questions. We don't know all of the church fathers and saints' writings. I've trusted my spiritual father's direction on questionable topics. How else are we to determine what is or is not "Orthodox" when we have so much to learn? AFR for example is one of the sources many of us use.

I see some serious theological issues with Darwinism, especially with our view of original sin, but it is a question that goes beyond this topic into the various topics with a range of opinions.

Honest question here.

for those of us who are not bishops, we just gotta trust that they will deal with it when it becomes an issue for them to deal with.

 

[All4Christ]

for those of us who are not bishops, we just gotta trust that they will deal with it when it becomes an issue for them to deal with.

This doesn't answer my question about how to handle it on a personal level. On one hand, you said it isn't Orthodox. On the other hand, we should trust the bishops to handle it if it is an issue. So is it possible for something to not be an acceptable option in Orthodoxy if the bishops don't see it as a problem to deal with? Do you see my concern with this? (No disrespect intended.)

 

[gzt]

And not only don't see it as a problem, but teach it themselves.

 

[rusmeister]

I think agnosticism/skepticism at the very least

about the claims of evolution is definitely called for, on general grounds that it is only a theory of a temporal science that cannot be confirmed by observation, and on the specific grounds that our doctrine that sin entered the world by fully-formed man, and death by sin absolutely contradicts the idea of a world in which death existed for ages before there was any man to sin, and that beings that very gradually somehow became men (and are still changing into we-know-not-what, meaning that there is properly no such permanent thing as man, or any species for that matter) were dying without having consciously sinned. You have to decide. Did death enter the world as a result of the actions of fully formed humans, or was death a part of all existence before there were any people to speak of?

I think it much less important that we believe any "young earth theory" than it is that we simply remember that all temporal sciences are conducted by very fallible humans, and that the knowledge they claim to tell us is not as authoritative as the revelation of Christ, and the teachings of the apostles and the Church fathers. A certain claim that the Earth is exactly x years, be it 7,000 or 4.5 billion, is more doubtful than that.

Since education, the process by which these scientists claim to have come to know anything, is my "thing", I know just how poor the whole process is, and why I should therefore place such complete and blind trust in such "experts" is beyond me. I know their philosophy is essentially nill, theology was a thing completely separated from their philosophical presuppositions (such as they are), and I see how, through mass education, millions of them can make the same mistakes, consistently, come to the same conclusions based on those mistakes, and, not seeing the mistakes, nor able to observe the assumed phenomena, think themselves certainly and dogmatically right.

It's interesting that both of my favorite authors, Lewis and Chesterton, both initially accepted evolution - Lewis for much of his adult life, until about 1950 - they both came to strongly doubt it.

In short, put not your faith in princes - or secular sages.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This doesn't answer my question about how to handle it on a personal level. On one hand, you said it isn't Orthodox. On the other hand, we should trust the bishops to handle it if it is an issue. So is it possible for something to not be an acceptable option in Orthodoxy if the bishops don't see it as a problem to deal with? Do you see my concern with this? (No disrespect intended.)

I guess I am not following what you are saying. I will teach everyone I come into contact with that it is not our teaching, pray for them, etc. but I would never refuse someone at the Chalice for believing in evolution, and I would never go out of my way to publically "correct" a bishop who does teach it (as if I have that right).

 

[All4Christ]

I think agnosticism/skepticism at the very least

about the claims of evolution is definitely called for, on general grounds that it is only a theory of a temporal science that cannot be confirmed by observation, and on the specific grounds that our doctrine that sin entered the world by fully-formed man, and death by sin absolutely contradicts the idea of a world in which death existed for ages before there was any man to sin, and that beings that very gradually somehow became men (and are still changing into we-know-not-what, meaning that there is properly no such permanent thing as man, or any species for that matter) were dying without having consciously sinned. You have to decide. Did death enter the world as a result of the actions of fully formed humans, or was death a part of all existence before there were any people to speak of?

I think it much less important that we believe any "young earth theory" than it is that we simply remember that all temporal sciences are conducted by very fallible humans, and that the knowledge they claim to tell us is not as authoritative as the revelation of Christ, and the teachings of the apostles and the Church fathers. A certain claim that the Earth is exactly x years, be it 7,000 or 4.5 billion, is more doubtful than that.

Since education, the process by which these scientists claim to have come to know anything, is my "thing", I know just how poor the whole process is, and why I should therefore place such complete and blind trust in such "experts" is beyond me. I know their philosophy is essentially nill, theology was a thing completely separated from their philosophical presuppositions (such as they are), and I see how, through mass education, millions of them can make the same mistakes, consistently, come to the same conclusions based on those mistakes, and, not seeing the mistakes, nor able to observe the assumed phenomena, think themselves certainly and dogmatically right.

It's interesting that both of my favorite authors, Lewis and Chesterton, both initially accepted evolution - Lewis for much of his adult life, until about 1950 - they both came to strongly doubt it.

In short, put not your faith in princes - or secular sages.

Our doctrine of Ancestral Sin (and death as a result of sin) is my biggest sticking point with Darwinism - and evolution in general. OEC is a bit easier to reconcile, but the question about death and corruption of the world remains.

 

[All4Christ]

I guess I am not following what you are saying. I will teach everyone I come into contact with that it is not our teaching, pray for them, etc. but I would never refuse someone at the Chalice for believing in evolution, and I would never go out of my way to publically "correct" a bishop who does teach it (as if I have that right).

Ok, unless I can figure out how to express what I am asking more clearly, I'll drop this. Like I said, this question goes far beyond the theory of evolution. It is more of a question in general (or maybe reflection) about authority of doctrines, variance of teachings within the Orthodox Church, obedience to spiritual fathers, etc.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok, unless I can figure out how to express what I am asking more clearly, I'll drop this. Like I said, this question goes far beyond the theory of evolution. It is more of a question in general (or maybe reflection) about authority of doctrines, variance of teachings within the Orthodox Church, obedience to spiritual fathers, etc.

I think the only thing I can say is that when it comes to doctrine and authority, sometimes it can take time for a new idea to either clearly be affirmed or denied. until the bishops do that, pray and be faithful, talk to your priest, and trust that God will clearly speak the truth when He is ready.

 

[Kristos]

Ok. I figured that was your belief based on your posts. That said, what is acceptable according to the Church today? I've always heard that there is a range of beliefs accepted (with TAW honestly being the exception to what I've heard).

Perhaps your view has been skewed by a few outliers around here. YEC as a scientific theory is bunk, pure and simple. There is no such thing as YEC as a theological theory. It's pseudoscience based on nothing. It's like insisting that men must have 1 less rib than women or dinosaurs didn't exist. There you go

 

[jckstraw72]

It's based on the theology of the saints. The saints teach that God reveals the creation of the world to them. God didn't leave us in the dark. Sorry, that ain't the way God works.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Perhaps your view has been skewed by a few outliers around here. YEC as a scientific theory is bunk, pure and simple. There is no such thing as YEC as a theological theory.

As an observation, there actually are camps in YEC that do adhere to things you'd find within schools of thought in the world of Evolutionary theory. Believing the world is young doesn't necessarily mean things didn't originally get created by God as having the ability to kill (like Lions or Hawks or great sea creatures in Psalm 103) - and it doesn't mean that God cannot transform things as necessary. Also, One thing I noticed at several points over the years is that whenever the doctrine of Ancestral Sin (and death as a result of sin) comes up in regards to Darwinism - and evolution in general - others note that the concept of death is a matter of the TYPE of death that entered.

Several of the fathers (like Clement of Alexandria as an example) said that death was part of God's plan - and they also noted it was already possible for Adam to die (due to the Tree of Life not being given to mankind yet)....and it was one of the views present, in addition to the understanding that plants were eaten (and plants are very much alive) in the garden, more here in this thread:

• Consequence of Sin

​

​

My own views tend to land somewhere between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution - as I am not opposed to Evolution provided that we know how we're defining it properly. I stand with others who stood against Darwin, such as Asa Gray - and on others open to certain aspects of evolution, If you'd like some good places for review on the issue, you may wish to investigate others like Kallistos Ware:

• Kallistos Ware - Orthodoxy and Evolution
• DANCING WITH UNICORNS: Creationism

From what I understand, it seems that the Orthodox Church/the Church Fathers were very complicated when it comes to what they stated as it concerns how it's easy to see patterns toward the allegorical and not being 100% literal in all things. - more at Darwin, Evolution, Adam & Eve - Coptic Orthodox Divine Justice.

That said, as it concerns death of man, that is something that seems very nuanced. In example, some in the Early Church felt that our bodies weren't meant designed to be eternal before the Fall.

I recall where it was the Tree of Life which the Lord prevented man from partaking of - for after he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good/Evil, he became aware/self-autonomous and distant from the Lord. Knowing things ahead of time he should not have known outside of God teaching him - no different than parents wishing to instruct their children on sex BEFORE they get exposed to it since they cannot handle it on their own standards.

Genesis 2:17

Life in God's Garden
8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

....15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; ...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.​

God doesn't seem afraid of man eating the Tree of the Knowledge of Good/Evil. However, he does seem VERY concerned with them accessing the Tree of Life:

\Genesis 3:22
22 Then the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.... therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

​

As seen in Genesis 3, there were severe consequences for eating of the Tree of Life---not many times (as in habit)...but only ONCE, as if when eating of that tree, it was a done deal/man became truly immortal. For if man had been eating of the Tree of Life continually, then it'd seem odd that somehow to think that it had yet to make them immortal---with them continually having to keep eating it and later having the effects wear off in time till they had their next session of eating from the Tree.

It seems that in Genesis 3, there's an indicator that the fruit was so strong that once one ate of it ONE TIME, that'd be it......................immortality for all seasons/reasons.

IMHO, the Tree of Life couldn't of been available to man to eat of since the day he was in the Garden (unless, of course, like all trees that one took extensive time to grow/develop until it was ripe for eating).

It seems reasonable to think the Tree of Life was something that was intended to be given to Him later on/seal him into immortality within the state of perfection he was developed into. Tree of Life was something special that both God and the Enemy knew of-------and that as man grew up, that tree would a reward..........much like a teenager with his father going out to buy his own car due to his development/maturity, even though prior to that transportation was given to the indiviudal since he was a child (for his own safety) before he grew into adulthood.

And that same tree is present later on in Revelation:

Revelation 22
[ The River of Life ] And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. ...

Revelation 22:14-15
Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.​

There are footnotes in the OSB (Orthodox Study Bible) to see what it had to say about that passage. Here's the explanation:

22:2, 3 The tree of life, a symbol of Christ Himself, gives immortality. It fulfills the tree of life in Paradise (Gen. 3:22) and the other tree of life, the Cross of the Savior, the tree of obedience (1 Pt. 2:24), a tree of curse (Gal. 3:13). But there is no more curse (v. 3) in the Holy City: a reversal of the curse of Gen. 3:16-19. The fruits and leaves of the tree are completely and universally therapeutic, reversing the effects of the fruit of the tree of disobedience (Gen. 3:16).​

It's explained there that the Tree of Good and Evil is the tree of disobedience.


Some of what I'm thinking of goes into the concept of Theosis--the process of growing in relationship with the Lord/becoming like him. And reading this in Lossky he states:

Can one say that Adam, in his paradisiacal condition, was really immortal? God did not create death; says the book of Wisdom. For archaic theology...;St. Irenaeus for example;Adam was neither necessarily mortal nor necessarily immortal: his nature, rich in possibilities, malleable, could be constantly nourished by grace & transformed by it to the point of surmounting all the risks of aging & death. The possibilities of mortality existed but in order to be made impossible. Such was the test of Adam& Eve's freedon. The tree of life at the center paradise & its nourishing of immortality offered therefore a possibility: thus our Christo-ecclesiastical realities, the Eucharist, which heals us, nourishes & fortifies us, spiritually & bodily. One must feed oneself with God to attain freely deification. And it is this personal effort that Adam failed.; (Orthodox Theology: An Introduction, pp77-78)
​

As an aside, it is interesting to consider how Origen thought that souls were created before bodies and were put in bodies as a punishment for earlier sin, which didn't mean that bodies were bad, necessarily, but did mean that souls didn't need bodies and so the body wasn't seen as intrinsic to human nature.

On the issue, Clement of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopseustia held that human death was part of Gods plan before the Fall - in addition to holding the mindset that Adam was created immortal from day one as a part of his nature.

Theodore notes in his treatise Against Those Who Assert That Men Sin by Nature and Not by Will:

Whether God did not know that Adam was going to sin: this should be the response for these exceedingly wise men, that it is most insane even to consider this notion. It is obvious that [God] knew he was going to sin, and that on account of this he would, without a doubt, die. How then is it not suggestive of extreme madness to believe that first [God] made him immortal, for six hours,; but appointed him to be mortal after the sin? Because it is certain that if [God] had wanted him to be immortal, not even the intervention of the act of sin would have changed the divine decree, for God did not reduce the devil from immortality to mortality, and he was the originator of all evils!​

To be clear, this argument by no means surrenders the foundational theological principle that death is a punishment for sin, but on the contrary, it assumes it. What it tries to safeguard, however, is divine sovereignty: for if God had created Adam immortal, Theodore argues, he should have remained immortal even in his post-lapsarian state, forever under the punishment of death, with no possibility of redemption ...just like the devil. Essentially, what is on the line is not just Adam & is ontological transformation, but God's justice and sovereignty as well. It was in God's justice that death is the appropriate punishment for Adam's sin and also the means of deliverance.

As said best elsewhere, Mortality is at once the consequence of sin and an aspect of humanity's original state.

As stated by Theodore of Mopsuestia on the need for death:

God did not place death upon man either unwillingly or against his better judgment, neither did he provide access to sin for no good purpose; for he was able, if he did not wish this to be so, to do otherwise. But he knew it was beneficial for us, nay more, for all rational creatures, at first to have access to evils and inferior things, and thereafter for these to be blotted out and better things introduced.

Therefore God divided the creation into two states, the present and the future. In the latter he will bring all to immortality and immutability. In the former he gives us over to death and mutability. For if he had made us at first immortal and immutable, we should not have differed from irrational animals, who do not understand the peculiar characteristics by which they are distinguished.​

Augustine held views similar to that:

"God, who is supremely good in his creation of natures that are good, is also completely just in his employment of evil choices in his design, so that whereas such evil choices make a wrong use of good natures, God turns evil choices to good use. . . . Evil things are allowed to exist in order to show how the righteousness and foreknowledge of the Creator can turn even those very evils to good account."

City of God 11.17; 14.11.​

On the issue, holding the view that Adam and Eve were created mortal and were to become immortal after a period of probation in the garden was held by Theophilus of Antioch, Second Century Bishop (more shared in CHAPTER XXVII.—THE NATURE OF MAN. from Fathers of the Second Century and here and here). He felt that we were created neither mortal or immortal ...

As he said:

CHAP. XXVII.--THE NATURE OF MAN.


"But some one will say to us, Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting.

To Autolycus, Book II
​

Augustine held to a variation of this view in which the bodies of Adam and Eve, though created mortal, were preserved from decay and lustful desires by being able to feed on the Tree of Life. Exclusion from the Tree of Life after the Fall therefore resulted in human death. Had Adam and Eve not fallen they would have received what we know as resurrection bodies.


This is what St. Augustine said (in The Literal Meaning of Genesis ) on the issue and where I've often leaned toward.

"He was mortal ... by the constitution of his natural body, and he was immortal by the gift of his Creator. For if it was a natural body he had, it was certainly mortal because it was able to die, at the same time immortal by reason of the fact that it was able not to die. Only a spiritual being is immortal by virtue of the fact that it cannot possibly die; and this condition is promised to us in the resurrection. Consequently, Adam's body, a natural and therefore mortal body, which by justification would become spiritual and therefore truly immortal, in reality by sin was made not mortal (because it was that already) but rather a dead thing, which it would have been able not to be if Adam had not sinned." (pp. 204-205)​

Augustine suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were created mortal

AND I appreciate how Augustine asked the question of why would Adam and Eve have to eat if they were created immortal - and as he noted:

"It is difficult to explain how man was created immortal and at the same time in company with the other living creatures was given for food the seed-bearing plant, the fruit tree, and the green crops. If it was by sin that he was made mortal, surely before sinning he did not need such food since his body could not corrupt for lack of it" (p. 97).​

What St. Augustine proposes is that Adam and Eve were created with mortal bodies - indeed, their death was the result of their sin, but Augustine suggests that, had they not sinned, they would have been given the spiritual bodies with which we will be endowed at the resurrection. Of course, in all cases, it is already understood that Adam and Eve need the Grace of God to survive and live their lives - all of the creation is CONTINUALLY relying upon the Grace of the Lord to continue on, even as it has been created naturally to do many differing types of things. This is the basic concept behind what many in Orthodoxy have advocated when it comes to Panentheism - God is distinct from His Creation and yet His creation exists because He animates it as it lives within Him and he touches it in every way.

It is because of this dynamic that Augustine can note rather easily that man was created to be mortal - with the potential for immortality as long as he chose to actively do his part. Man being made MORTAL (able to die physically) isn't the same as saying that all forms of death (i.e. death of the soul, death by disease or murder/war physically, the second death, etc.) were going to happen as well since Augustine already noted directly in his other works. However, as it concerns nature, St. Augustine had no issue noting how man was never made immortal. As said before, St. Augustine held to the view in which the bodies of Adam and Eve, though created mortal, were preserved from decay and lustful desires by being able to feed on the Tree of Life. ...and Exclusion from the Tree of Life after the Fall therefore resulted in human death. For Had Adam and Eve not fallen they would have received what we know as resurrection bodies.

As he said:

When the first human beings—the one man Adam, and his wife Eve who came out of him—willed not to obey the commandment which they had received from God, a just and deserved punishment overtook them. The Lord had threatened that, on the day they ate the forbidden fruit, they should surely die. Now, inasmuch as they had received the permission of using for food every tree that grew in Paradise, among which God had planted the tree of life, but had been forbidden to partake of one only tree, which He called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to signify by this name the consequence of their discovering whether what good they would experience if they kept the prohibition, or what evil if they transgressed it: they are no doubt rightly considered to have abstained from the forbidden food previous to the malignant persuasion of the devil, and to have used all which had been allowed them, and therefore, among all the others, and before all the others, the tree of life. For what could be more absurd than to suppose that they partook of the fruit of other trees, but not of that which had been equally with others granted to them, and which, by its especial virtue, prevented even their animal bodies from undergoing change through the decay of age, and from aging into death, applying this benefit from its own body to the man’s body, and in a mystery demonstrating what is conferred by wisdom (which it symbolized) on the rational soul, even that, quickened by its fruit, it should not be changed into the decay and death of iniquity? For of her it is rightly said, “She is a tree of life to them that lay hold of her.”589 Just as the one tree was for the bodily Paradise, the other is for the spiritual; the one affording a vigour to the senses of the outward man, the other to those of the inner man, such as will abide without any change for the worse through time. They therefore served God, since that dutiful obedience was committed to them, by which alone God can be worshipped. And it was not possible more suitably to intimate the inherent importance of obedience, or its sole sufficiency securely to keep the rational creature under the Creator, than by forbidding a tree which was not in itself evil.

Chapter 35 [XXI.]—Adam and Eve; Obedience Most Strongly Enjoined by God on Man.​

More in full can be found in The Works of Aurelius Augustine: A New Translation - Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.) - Google Books

For Augustine, the tree of life is a kind of “sacrament,” a sign that somehow makes present that which it signifies: “God did not want man to live in Paradise without the mysteries of spiritual things made present in material things. Man, then, had food in the other trees, but in the tree of life there was a sacrament.”


Adam's failure to keep Gods command and obey him by abstaining from eating from the forbidden fruit resulted in his expulsion from the Garden of Eden. He was already supplied with food - for the food of the first man was abundant - as seen by Gods address to Adam and Eve - "Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, to you it shall be for meat. (Gen. 1:29). But he was to exercise restraint with only one tree...

And along with the theme of sacrements, I think the Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolize learning via independence from God and NOT trusting in Him to reveal things in time. ....to wait on the Lord is a form of obedience and patience, denying ourselves so that we can have life.

As St. John Chrysostom noted best (who often compared the state of monks to Adam):

Not only monks with angelic life are accompanied by the fasting power, but also laymen, who are flying on the wings of fasting till the heights of holy contemplation.

I recall that the two great prophets of the Old Testament, Moses and Elijah, although they had great daring towards God, by their virtues, they often fasted, and fasting brought them closer to God.

Even long before them, in the beginning of creation, when God created man, He immediately gave the command to fast. If Adam fulfilled this commandment, he would be saved. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.(Genesis 2, 16-17).

This was no other than the command to fast. If in Paradise was a need for fasting, there is a bigger need outside it. Before man was spiritually hurt, fasting had been a medicine for him; now more than ever when his soul is hit by sin, fasting is a medicine. Before the war of pleasures begun, there had been a need for fasting; the need is grater now, when we wage wars against devil. If Adam had obeyed this commandment, he would not have heard the words: for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. (Genesis 3, 19). Because Adam didn’t obey, there subsequently came death, worries, sufferings, and a life worse than any death.

Do you see how God becomes angry when fasting is despised? And you cannot imagine how much He rejoices at our fasting. Death touched man because he despised fasting and also through fasting death can not have power on man.​

Also, as Father Alexander Schmemann notes:

It is important, therefore, to discern the uniquely Christian content of fasting. It is first of all revealed to us in the interdependence between two events which we find in the Bible: one at the beginning of the Old Testament and the other ar the beginning of the New Testament. The first event is the ;breaking of the fast; by Adam in Paradise. He ate of the forbidden fruit. This is how man;s original sin is revealed to us. Christ, the New Adam ;and this is the second event begins by fasting. Adam was tempted and he succumbed to temptation; Christ was tempted and He overcame that temptation. The results of AdamS failure are expulsion from Paradise and death. The fruits of Christs victory are the destruction of death and our return to Paradise. . . .​

It makes sense to say that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was created by God as well as all other trees in Paradise and, as such, preceded the Satan and his sinful machinations - meaning that Gods commandment to Adam and Even not to eat of the particular fruit was given as a method of mans discipline of self-control and growth in spiritual disciplines, seeing that man was made "good" rather than "perfect" ....and he still needed to learn and develop as all people do (just as Christ had to according to Luke 2 ). While the first man in Paradise was not perfect, he was good and capable of improving and developing his personality.

Fr. Michael Pomazansky from his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology pointed out the following:

Man was created immortal in his soul, and he could have remained immortal also in body if he had not fallen away from God. The Wisdom of Solomon says: God did not make death (Wis. 1:13). man's body, as was well expressed by Blessed Augustine, does not possess the "impossibility of dying," but it did possess "the possibility of not dying," which it has now lost. The writer of Genesis informs us that this "possibility of not dying" was maintained in Paradise by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, of which our first ancestors were deprived after they were banished from Paradise.​

There is an excellent review on the issue that may come in handy - as seen in Dumitru Staniloae on The Fall :: Eastern Orthodox Theology « T h e o • p h i l o g u e.'

Also, In the Book of Jubilees (Jubilees 4:29 - more in Links | THE ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX BIBLE PROJECT ), it notes the following:

And at the close of the nineteenth jubilee, in the seventh week in the sixth year thereof, Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, and he was the first to be buried in the earth. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die. For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it.​

In many ways this is all premature death. Moreover, in the Book of Enoch Chapter XV (more noted on Enoch here/here), we read the passage where God explains to Enoch why the angels were not given wives:

And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: You should intercede for men, and not men for you: 3. Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? 4. And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those & do who die and perish. 5. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were ; spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.​

In other words, we marry only because we are not immortal/eternal. For Immortal/eternal beings according to Enoch (and the Messiah for that matter, as seen in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 22) clearly teach that humans were always mortal, because they were always intended to marry in this life, even before the fall of Adam.

Even with God's permission to eat fruit, there are many fruits that still experience death when you eat them. Specifically, the death of the fruit's flesh (and its seeds, if those get chewed up, too) - as well as the fruit's flesh (and its seeds) are alive, made of living cells. Those seeds are tiny fruit embryos, making them independent organisms. They do die when we eat and digest them. And the same thing is true of other plant matter we eat. Thus, even on a highly literal reading of Genesis, that there was plant death before the Fall. animals. The idea that no creatures, including plants, died prior to the Fall is the extreme position of a minority of young earth creationists...and whenever it's claimed that only parts of plants are eaten, and, therefore, no plants actually died in the Fall, the argument seems to be a bit inconsistent. Although a number of grazing animals eat only the tops of grass or leaves, leaving the plant alive, there are a number of exceptions - as even grass grazers pull up whole plants (including the roots) on occasion, which results in the death of entire plants. Some animals eat only roots, such as gophers. Once the roots are eaten, the plant quickly dies. From an aquatic perspective, many sea animals eat diatoms and microscopic plants - ingesting and killing entire organisms. And thus, unless God changed the way these herbivores eat, plants surely died during the fifth and sixth days of creation.

Even outside of that, we still have the issue of how even in the plant kingdom, some species such as sundews and Venus Fly Traps obtain much of their nutrition by trapping and digesting insects and other small animals. There are other places this has been discussed:

• Jun 30, 2014#313
• Jun 29, 2014#281
  
• Jun 29, 2014#282
  
• Jun 29, 2014#283
  
• Jun 30, 2014#307
  
• Jun 29, 2014#287
  
• Jun 30, 2014#319
  
• Jun 30, 2014#322
  
• Jun 30, 2014#324
  
• Jun 30, 2014#325

John 12:23
23 Jesus replied,"The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.​

Just an observation.