How do we explain Neanderthals?

[gzt]

If the case is so overwhelming that you're willing to go on the verge of calling people on internet message boards heretics, then why are the bishops of the Church not willing to do the same? Why are they not stopping people from teaching evolution? Why are they not insisting on a 7500 year old earth? If the case is so open and shut? Why even do some bishops encourage it?

 

[jckstraw72]

If the case is so overwhelming that you're willing to go on the verge of calling people on internet message boards heretics, then why are the bishops of the Church not willing to do the same? Why are they not stopping people from teaching evolution? Why are they not insisting on a 7500 year old earth? If the case is so open and shut? Why even do some bishops encourage it?

that's a question for them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If the case is so overwhelming that you're willing to go on the verge of calling people on internet message boards heretics, then why are the bishops of the Church not willing to do the same? Why are they not stopping people from teaching evolution? Why are they not insisting on a 7500 year old earth? If the case is so open and shut? Why even do some bishops encourage it?

because that's not how the Church functions to clarify their dogma. it took centuries for Origenism to be condemned, and even though when Origen was alive folks were pointing out errors in his teaching. it did not make him any less wrong in his Orthodoxy.

they dealt with it when it threatened the Church. but that doesn't make it less wrong for those centuries prior to it's condemnation. I am sure there were some Origen fans in the 400s that asked the same thing you just did.

 

[rusmeister]

So you think my bishop may be a heretic? He is, uh, the real authority where I am.

He didn't say that. He's saying that it's possible for individual bishops to go wrong, and even fall into heresy. Do you deny that possibility? Do you agree that all bishops ought to strive to be careful not to so that?

My whole peoblem with your view is that it champions a position that does say these things don't matter, that individuals are broadly free to dissent with general consensus, even to the point where you deny obvious consensus. Jackstraw is quoting father after father; not one or two, but dozens, showing that consensus. You make vague references to some modern bishops and theologians, and don't in general refer to the fathers. You are promoting a non-patristic understanding of Orthodoxy, one in which the individual is effectively his own king and pope, and is free to go and find hierarchs today that happen to agree with his position, rather than trying to conform his position to that of the consensus of the Church. The Church is very much the fathers as much as your living bishops; it is mostly made up of the great cloud of witnesses, and we can read what they wrote, and listen to what they have to say.

I am quite clear that it is very hard to even face the idea of giving up ideas and views we have held all our lives. I can imagine few discoveries more thunderously shocking than that our education has led us wrong, that we have been seeing many things wrongly. It can be so hard that it is truly easier to reject and deny the discovery, and hold on to what turns out to be the falsehood. But our first principles must be clear. Without the authority of the fathers, we have no Church, just Sola Scriptura and our own opinions. It must be not only my bishop who has the authority to correct me, but he does, as long as he himself conforms to patristic teaching, but that consensus we find expressed, not only in the writings of the fathers, and their referencing of Holy Scripture, but in the Liturgy and prayers, in the whole praxis of the Church. There is no troparion singing of the gradual development of man out of beasts, but there Certainly are ones that sing about death entering the world by man's sin. You are rightbin seeing that there must ge intersection between our ideas about the development of man in terms of this world, and the teachings of Tradition. But the ideas you have supported are simply not expressed in our Tradition, this effort to seek synthesis with modern secular education, to treat the latter as fully truth-revealing as the former.

 

[gzt]

Let me put it this way: I trust these bishops, priests, and theologians as mediators of Orthodox theology and truth more than I trust a couple guys on a message board and Fr Seraphim Rose of blessed memory as mediators of Orthodox tradition.

 

[jckstraw72]

we already know that. what we don't know is how the opinions of these clergy and theologians are justifiably Orthodox.

 

[gzt]

I suggest, then, that you cool your jets.

 

[jckstraw72]

and let's be clear here. you don't trust Fr. Seraphim. but you also don't trust:

Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow
St. Ambrose of Optina
Elder Amphilochios of Patmos
St. Barsanuphius of Optina
Elder Cleopa
Hieromartyr Fr. Daniel Sysoev
Archimandrite Ephraim of Vatopaidi
St. Gabriel Igoshkin (hieroconfessor)
Fr. George Calciu
Dr. George Mantzaridis
Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos
Met. Hilarion Alfeyev
St. Hilarion Troitsky (Abp. of Verey, heiromartyr)
Abp. Iakovos (Coucouzis)
St. Ignatius Brianchaninov
I. M. Kontzevitch
Schema-Abbot John (Alekseyev), Elder of Valaam
St. John of Kronstadt,
Elder Joseph the Hesychast.
St. Justin Popovich
St. Luke of Simferopol
Archimandrite Naum (elder of Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra)
St. Nektarios
St. Nicholas Pokrovsky
St. Nikolai Velimirovich
St. Paisios
Elder Paisius (Olaru) of Sihastira and Sihla
St. Paul Andreyev (Hiermoartyr)
Patriarch Pavle
Fr. Philotheos Zervakos
St. Sebastian Dabovich
St. Silouan
Fr. Sophrony
St. Thaddeus Uspensky (Abp. of Tver, hieromartyr)
St. Theophan the Recluse
St. Varlaam Nikol’sky (hieromartyr)
St. Vladimir Bogoyavlensky (Met. of Kiev and Gallich, hieromartyr of Bolshevik Yoke)
Vladimir Lossky
Fr. Zacharias Zachariou

you know, just to get everything out in the open.

 

[jckstraw72]

I suggest, then, that you cool your jets.

if you're not prepared or willing to do anything more than noting that dissension exists, if you're not prepared to actually engage the issues, then perhaps, you might be the one who should step back from participating. if you're going to reject the teachings of the saints and canons, expect some pushback.

 

[gzt]

I'm not the one saying people are rejecting the teaching of the Church.

 

[truefiction1]

demonstrate that this is anything other than your personal opinion.

The Biblical evidence shows that God an impute the effects of Christ's Sacrifice (salvation) upon even those who lived and died before it, who are saved just as those coming after it.

Hence, God can impute the effects of Adam's sin upon life forms that were before it, if God so chooses. If this is what God chooses to do then so be it, it is still "good", because God chooses it. It is not my personal opinion that decides how God chooses to apply the effects of Adam's sin, but God's design. Therefore, let the physical evidence provided by examining God's creation inform us as to what God's choice is in this matter.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I trust these bishops, priests, and theologians as mediators of Orthodox theology and truth more than I trust a couple guys on a message board and Fr Seraphim Rose of blessed memory as mediators of Orthodox tradition.

that's why it is more than just Fr Seraphim that we are quoting. hence the lives of saints, canons, Scripture, hymns, Patristic writings, etc were all mentioned.

 

[truefiction1]

i've already quoted Ecumenical Canons that say otherwise.

The reality pertaining to this is that the majority of Church members are not informed by obscure canons, so that the "realtime" effect is that the Church will find her own way through these challenging questions of our time, perhaps giving consideration of such canons.

 

[gzt]

But see your presentation of these in this context means the interpretation is being mediated through you - hence my comment.

 

[ArmyMatt]

but it's not me giving my take on anything, aside from saying the saints know what they are talking about more than I know about this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow
St. Ambrose of Optina
Elder Amphilochios of Patmos
St. Barsanuphius of Optina
Elder Cleopa
Hieromartyr Fr. Daniel Sysoev
Archimandrite Ephraim of Vatopaidi
St. Gabriel Igoshkin (hieroconfessor)
Fr. George Calciu
Dr. George Mantzaridis
Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos
Met. Hilarion Alfeyev
St. Hilarion Troitsky (Abp. of Verey, heiromartyr)
Abp. Iakovos (Coucouzis)
St. Ignatius Brianchaninov
I. M. Kontzevitch
Schema-Abbot John (Alekseyev), Elder of Valaam
St. John of Kronstadt,
Elder Joseph the Hesychast.
St. Justin Popovich
St. Luke of Simferopol
Archimandrite Naum (elder of Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra)
St. Nektarios
St. Nicholas Pokrovsky
St. Nikolai Velimirovich
St. Paisios
Elder Paisius (Olaru) of Sihastira and Sihla
St. Paul Andreyev (Hiermoartyr)
Patriarch Pavle
Fr. Philotheos Zervakos
St. Sebastian Dabovich
St. Silouan
Fr. Sophrony
St. Thaddeus Uspensky (Abp. of Tver, hieromartyr)
St. Theophan the Recluse
St. Varlaam Nikol’sky (hieromartyr)
St. Vladimir Bogoyavlensky (Met. of Kiev and Gallich, hieromartyr of Bolshevik Yoke)
Vladimir Lossky
Fr. Zacharias Zachariou

you forgot:
Fr. Michael Pomazansky
Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy
Dr. Apostolos Makrakis
St. Porphyrios
Elder Ephraim of Philotheau
St. John Maximovitch
Elder Arsenios the Cave-dweller
Elder Charalambos of Dionysiou
Elder Ephraim of Katounakia
Fr. Damascene (Christiansen)

 

[truefiction1]

absolutely 100% not true. read St. John of Damascus -- OT anthropomorphisms of God are symbolic of His immaterial energies.

Octoechos (Tone 4, Sunday Matins, Canon to the Theotokos, Ode 8, Troparion): “In the tent Abraham saw the mystery that is in you, O Mother of God; for he received your Son fleshless."

if Christ is incarnate from before the ages, that means human nature is timeless. only that which is Uncreated is timeless, and that which is Uncreated is Divine. if Christ is timelessly incarnate then human nature is Divine and incapable of falling and in no need of redemption.

Excellent arguing points. I absolutely agree that the OT anthropomorphisms of God are figurative ways of speaking of immaterial energies, though what we can say about immaterial energies and how they interact in the realm of created matter is likely the stuff of much discourse. My tendency is to try to see Christ in every verse of Scripture, so I will make the connection that we can speak anthropomorphically about God because God can reside with us as one of us, a man, which is realized in Christ. I also tend to avoid talking about OT language as figurative, in here, in order to avoid being accused of teaching that everything in the OT is to be held to be mere allegory. That's all.

I did not mean to say that Christ is Incarnate before the ages (even though Christ is said by us to be "boundless") I mean that the Incarnation, the Death of Christ, and Paradise (where occurred the fall of man) are key points of intersection between the Eternal realm (Heaven -- the timeless abode of God) and the horizontal time line that exists with Creation, beginning to end, causing these to be Mysteries with consequences far beyond out ability to comprehend. We may have theories of Creation, of the Paradise where occurred the fall, of Redemption, (theories about how these work) but these are merely theories, because as Mysteries, they defy cognitive circumspection.

Note that a point on the horizontal axis of a chronological timeline where heaven (figuratively seen as a vertical line coming from above) Mysteriously intersects it, takes the form of a cross. Is it any surprise to us that the cross is the symbol of Christ's death, having been the instrument used? Which is understood to be the exact point in time where God (Paradise) is reconnected to Creation by the Atoning Sacrifice? And yet no one can define how the death of Christ redeems. Anselm of Canterbury tried, and ended up producing an idol, because he would not respect the great mysteries in reverent awe and silence, having preferred to explain the inexplicable.

My suggestion is this: we cannot comprehend the great Mystery of Redemption because it is ontologically interwoven with man's fall out of Paradise, Both of these things being beyond cognitive circumspection. And on this note, I am resolved to leave these things in the realm of Mystery, and humbly withdraw from further comments in this thread.

Thanks again for the terrific discussions. It is always a great pleasure to hear from you all, and to know that you're all still doing well enough in your lives to be able to continue commenting in TAW. Glory to Jesus Christ!

 

[Zoii]

Do you really believe Noah got every species of animal on the Ark?

 

[rusmeister]

Do you really believe Noah got every species of animal on the Ark?

Do you really believe that a man rose from the dead?

 

[rusmeister]

Excellent arguing points. I absolutely agree that the OT anthropomorphisms of God are figurative ways of speaking of immaterial energies, though what we can say about immaterial energies and how they interact in the realm of created matter is likely the stuff of much discourse. My tendency is to try to see Christ in every verse of Scripture, so I will make the connection that we can speak anthropomorphically about God because God can reside with us as one of us, a man, which is realized in Christ. I also tend to avoid talking about OT language as figurative, in here, in order to avoid being accused of teaching that everything in the OT is to be held to be mere allegory. That's all.

I did not mean to say that Christ is Incarnate before the ages (even though Christ is said by us to be "boundless") I mean that the Incarnation, the Death of Christ, and Paradise (where occurred the fall of man) are key points of intersection between the Eternal realm (Heaven -- the timeless abode of God) and the horizontal time line that exists with Creation, beginning to end, causing these to be Mysteries with consequences far beyond out ability to comprehend. We may have theories of Creation, of the Paradise where occurred the fall, of Redemption, (theories about how these work) but these are merely theories, because as Mysteries, they defy cognitive circumspection.

Note that a point on the horizontal axis of a chronological timeline where heaven (figuratively seen as a vertical line coming from above) Mysteriously intersects it, takes the form of a cross. Is it any surprise to us that the cross is the symbol of Christ's death, having been the instrument used? Which is understood to be the exact point in time where God (Paradise) is reconnected to Creation by the Atoning Sacrifice? And yet no one can define how the death of Christ redeems. Anselm of Canterbury tried, and ended up producing an idol, because he would not respect the great mysteries in reverent awe and silence, having preferred to explain the inexplicable.

My suggestion is this: we cannot comprehend the great Mystery of Redemption because it is ontologically interwoven with man's fall out of Paradise, Both of these things being beyond cognitive circumspection. And on this note, I am resolved to leave these things in the realm of Mystery, and humbly withdraw from further comments in this thread.

Thanks again for the terrific discussions. It is always a great pleasure to hear from you all, and to know that you're all still doing well enough in your lives to be able to continue commenting in TAW. Glory to Jesus Christ!

The main problem I have with your ideas, TF, is that they are YOUR ideas. They weave a view of Creation and the Incarnation rather than receive the view we ought to have. And the upshot of it is that, going from your view, we can't really know anything. You take agnosticism, a good thing in its place, and make it an overarching principle that effectively denies the interpretations hitherto agreed on. And for what? I can't see any other purpose except the desire for synthesis: to accept that what the world taught us is just as true as what the fathers teach.

But it's this interpretation of yours that really IS private, that is not expressed in any consensus of the fathers; and some of what you propound I've never heard anywhere. It makes Orthodoxy into we-know-not-what. To what extent are we brought into common Truth; to what extent are we of one heart and one mind? With you, I honestly don't know, and it's your insistence on taking, not only what the fathers averred we can't know, and stretching it to cover nearly everything. And what's more, anyone can take your principle of our general incomprehension to deny any doctrine at will, and insert their own, even if you joined us in condemning it.

It's no good calling yourself a fool, of striving for humility, if you see your intellect as above that of the fathers. The only way to escape the temptation to intellectual pride is to set aside what we think we know and ask what the fathers taught, and accept it as wiser than our own thoughts. Yes, the Councils, the Liturgy, etc all reinforce it, and it all points to the Incarnation and the Gospel, but dismissing the mass of the fathers that Jackstraw and Matt have pointed out makes your understanding a private one, not shared, and actually contradicted, by the great mass of the faithful in Church history.