Hopko and Schmemann?

[Gxg (G²)]

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.

Maybe it's possible to study evolutionary theories and still see them as a miracle of God when witnessing evolution in action (macro-evolution). For me, seeing what occurred throughout the account of Exodus 4-9 with the miracles God did of transformation from one thing to the next (i.e. making a staff turn into a snake, turning dust into gnats to plague Egypt, etc.), it was never an issue to study Evolutionary theories of species changing in large jumps. To me, it was about God at work doing what seems impossible - and if I could handle it within the Holy Tradition of Scripture itself, it didn't seem like something to reject the moment someone speaks of it in a methodological sense. Whereas they are describing something in a methodological and scientific sense, others are seeing connection in regards to seeing them attempt to explain God. Whereas they see random mutations that happen spontaneously, others see God jump starting things in the same way He already sustains all aspects of Creation.

 

[All4Christ]

Maybe it's possible to study evolutionary theories and still see them as a miracle of God when witnessing evolution in action (macro-evolution). For me, seeing what occurred throughout the account of Exodus 4-9 with the miracles God did of transformation from one thing to the next (i.e. making a staff turn into a snake, turning dust into gnats to plague Egypt, etc.), it was never an issue to study Evolutionary theories of species changing in large jumps. To me, it was about God at work doing what seems impossible - and if I could handle it within the Holy Tradition of Scripture itself, it didn't seem like something to reject the moment someone speaks of it in a methodological sense. Whereas they are describing something in a methodological and scientific sense, others are seeing connection in regards to seeing them attempt to explain God. Whereas they see random mutations that happen spontaneously, others see God jump starting things in the same way He already sustains all aspects of Creation.

I have no doubt that God could do whatever He wanted. I am not inclined to believe in theistic evolution. (I also am not inclined to believe in YEC). However, if i found out that either one was the truth, it wouldn't make or break my faith. Ultimately, God created us and everything else, with intelligent purposeful design. That's the most important part.

 

[gzt]

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. ...

You are going beyond your warrant here - it is your personal opinion that it is not our teaching.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You are going beyond your warrant here - it is your personal opinion that it is not our teaching.

the saints are very clear, so no, I am not going beyond my warrant at all. like I also said, I will never call out anyone publicly or refuse someone at the Chalice. my bishop has said he disagrees with evolution, so you can't say I am out of my warrant for being on the same page as the saints and my own bishop.

 

[gzt]

Fair, but there are people within the Church who do teach it, even bishops, so it is at least phenomenologically inaccurate to say it is not our teaching, even if your bishop and your personal interpretation of the tradition of the Church does not teach it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I can and I will say it is not our teaching, just as the priest who received me into Orthodoxy said it is not our teaching.

now, if someone wants to dispute this with me, I won't heresy hunt them or refuse any sacrament, but I am not gonna say evolution falls in line with what the Church teaches.

 

[gzt]

And I'll say Young Earth Creationism isn't.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yes, we are all aware of that.

 

[gzt]

All right, good talk.

 

[ArmyMatt]

indeed

 

[rusmeister]

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.

That is exactly why I am saying you can't reconcile it. Everything else is a deep faith that the earthly sciences reveal truth on a par with Holy Tradition; an absolute certainty in their collective infallibility and of equal value to - or greater value than - divine Revelation. Just look at gzt's avatar. It's what we think most important to assert to people. It's saying that the scientists, collectively and in their consensus, CAN'T be wrong - exactly as we do say about the Church fathers and Tradition.

They have no good answer to the problem of death in a sinless world. They wind up coming up with sophistry, as Gxg indicates here people talking about "types" of death, as if such attempt as parsing was ever remotely understood in Tradition, or trying to say that human sin "backdated" to the beginning of Creation (as if it was Dr Who or Star Trek creating "alternate timelines".

The whole idea of "continual revelation" is an attack on Orthodoxy itself. Yes, doctrines have been declared thoughout our history to clarify what Christians previously understood through common sense and faith, until some lost those things and invented heresies to cover their lack. But it has always been clarification, never new discoveries. And the idea of evolution now is solidly founded on the idea of continual revelation, that people today (more remarkably, people outside the Church!) can "know better" than the fathers and Apostles. They confuse things like technological development and accumulation of knowledge and claimed knowledge with Truth. They say, "Ah, if the fathers then knew what we know now, they would speak differently..."

 

[rusmeister]

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.

Go back and ask what the fathers taught. Jackstraw leaves me in the dust with his extensive knowledge and quoting of the fathers; apologetics is much more "my thing", but it is plain that the fathers never conceived of any 'gradual development of Creation with death at the heart of its reality until man came along, people capable of understnading right and wrong and sinning, and then Falling' and being expelled from that Eden of already-occuring death'.

And that's what gzt, Capp, and Kristos can't do - they can't show that the fathers understood Scripture and revelation to mean that. So they kind of have to debunk the fathers, and can only quote a few people - mainly from the twentieth century - who might really have thought otherwise.

 

[Ioustinos]

Forgive me because I'm jumping in this conversation so late, but I just wanted to say one thing.

I understand that many portions of Scripture are to be read in a variety of literary ways - literally, metaphorically, symbolically, etc.

The reason that I reject evolution is that evolution equals death. In order to evolve organisms and beings must evolve through a process of the survival of certain genetics. As I understand it, this process occurs through millions of years of life and death with the more evolved organisms procreating and the weaker organisms dying off.

The Church teaches that death came through sin and sin entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve. If death did not exist until after creation, then how could evolution - even theistic evolution - be compatible with the theology of life and death of the Church?

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Church teaches that death came through sin and sin entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve. If death did not exist until after creation, then how could evolution - even theistic evolution - be compatible with the theology of life and death of the Church?

that's the question. the problem is the only answer is that certain folks say it is compatible, and don't actually show how or why.

 

[All4Christ]

that's the question. the problem is the only answer is that certain folks say it is compatible, and don't actually show how or why.

Honestly, death, disease, corruption, etc is the reason I believe there is an element in creation that I will never understand perfectly, whether it is my human intellect not seeing how to reconcile the geological and scientific information we have seen with our Theology, or how our Theology integrates with the death and disease before the Fall. I've seen theories but they haven't fully satisfied my theological beliefs that I was taught when I became Orthodox. Ironically, it was theologically easier to fully accept the typical understanding of theistic evolution before I became Orthodox, despite my denomination vehemently teaching against evolution and anything other than YEC.

I've seen people say that the natural world (outside of those created in God's image) is supposed to experience death in the circle of life, but it seems strange that there also would be disease, disasters, etc. before the fall. It wasn't just animals killing animals, but also disease, natural disasters, etc. I realize that God could retroactively allow death since He knew that the Fall would happen, but the pieces don't fully fit together in my understanding.

That said, I personally accept creation as a combination of mystery and certainty. I am certain that death and corruption entered the world through sin, and that the Orthodox teaching about ancestral sin and the reality of the Fall is true. It is a mystery to me, however, to know how everything works together logistically. Like I said, I lean towards OEC, but I can't even fully embrace that due to not having a satisfactory answer about corruption. I have a hard time seeing all that death, disease, etc. continuing to happen after the Return of Christ when the world is renewed back to what happened before the Fall.

So for me...I don't know exactly what happened logistically, but I do believe and know what the church teaches about ancestral sin is true and important to accept. For that reason, I believe there always will be an element of mystery in my understanding, but also of spiritual certainty.

ETA: Some may see my mystery comment as a cop-out, but accepting mystery is a key part of Orthodoxy so I think we are justified in accepting that it is something we may not fully understand.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and that is the problem of theistic evolution. it is trying to use science to explain something you rightly say is a mystery. it is trying to make sense of our origins using fallen, naturalistic means. it's just as silly in my opinion to use science to try to prove YEC.

 

[All4Christ]

It's just as silly in my opinion to use science to try to prove YEC.

I agree on this point. Using "science" to try to prove YEC is fruitless and does not help YEC's credibility. Kristos is right that YEC as a pseudoscience is "bunk". The only way YEC would work, imho, is as a mystery, not as natural science or geological discoveries.

There is a "museum" in the States trying to show the scientific validity of YEC. I personally think it is a worthless museum that does more harm than good. It's great to try to support your beliefs, but making up fake scientific "facts" to support your POV just is silly.

 

[rusmeister]

and that is the problem of theistic evolution. it is trying to use science to explain something you rightly say is a mystery. it is trying to make sense of our origins using fallen, naturalistic means. it's just as silly in my opinion to use science to try to prove YEC.

Absolutely.
In the terms of the education of this world, I would say that our science is Fallen and so cannot reveal ultimate truth even about the natural Fallen world. Any knowledge based on calculation and assumption regarding events that cannot be observed can prove to be wrong if there really are variables unknown to our existing science. The natural sciences can never explain miraculous action by definition.

 

[rusmeister]

FTR, on the original post, I am listening to Hopko's series on Church history. It is wonderful stuff, though I pick up ironies in parallels that occur to me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

FTR, on the original post, I am listening to Hopko's series on Church history. It is wonderful stuff, though I pick up ironies in parallels that occur to me.

FTR to the OP, I think Fr Tom is as Orthodox as they come 95% of the time.