Originally Posted by Zazal
I'll say this now, though: I don't profess theistic evolution as a truth. My words here have not been about advocating theistic evolution, but rather about defending its legitimacy within Orthodoxy as one view among many. That is, I would (and do) contend that theistic evolution contains nothing threatening to Orthodoxy; that is not synonymous with saying that I myself profess theistic evolution.
1) the assumption of the simple reading of Scripture is a false assumption; there is no such thing (and, indeed, the ancient church - even in the pages of the New Testament - make it clear that Scripture was thought to be quite cryptic and in need of interpretation).
2) you rather ironically accuse me of using a modernist or humanist lens when my whole point has been quite the opposite - the two fold assumption(s) that A) Scriptural Truth is primarily contained in historical accuracy and that B) the Scriptures ought to be used for historical reconstruction are BOTH quite post-Renaissance / modernist in their tone. The earlier Christians, of whom I could cite quite a few starting within the pages of the New Testament and continuing unabated for centuries, did NOT assume EITHER of those two things.
The intent to use Genesis 1 as a literal record of history is the modernist and humanist assumption; my desire to use typological and allegorical understandings of the text is quite PRE-modern and very, very UN-humanist. My whole point is that the theistic evolution v. young earth creationism is an irrelevant product of needless hold-overs from modernist Christianity, and that the emphasis people place on that debate distracts from the real meaning of the text: Christ.
3) you assume that where Scripture refers to itself, it does so in a literal way. If a typological interpretation works in one part of Scripture, it works again when Scripture refers to that same story.
If you like, feel free to copy-paste your post here into ST. Justin's and I'll go more line by line (or take my three brief pseudo-replies and start from there - I'm flexible). If you'd prefer not to, that's fine to. I just wanted to offer.
In Christ,
Macarius
Hi bro,
Greetings.
What I can't understand is that when people like yourself that love the L-rd succumb (and I use the word carefully) to the theory of evolution, you by default erode the plain simplicity of Scripture and re-inforce a humanistic theory discovered/invented/promulgated by a man who ultimately denied and turned from G-d because of the very nature of what he thought he had discovered...it became his pre-occupation, his motivation and in a sense his god.
Macarius....If you'd like to debate the issue, and I'd be happy to do so, I'd encourage posting a new thread in St. Justin Martyr's Corner - our local subforum where non-Orthodox can freely debate positions with Orthodox Christians (something which is against forum rules in TAW's main forum - here). I understand, or I suppose that I assume, that your intent in this post is NOT to debate; it seems likely, though, that if I reply point by point it will almost necessarily become a debate and thus put you in the awkward position of either giving up on the discussion OR violating forum rules. Neither of those would be fair to you, so I invite you to St. Justin Martyr's corner to continue the discussion where we may have a more free reign.
I'll say this now, though: I don't profess theistic evolution as a truth. My words here have not been about advocating theistic evolution, but rather about defending its legitimacy within Orthodoxy as one view among many. That is, I would (and do) contend that theistic evolution contains nothing threatening to Orthodoxy; that is not synonymous with saying that I myself profess theistic evolution.
Like many Believers, I don't claim to fully understand the ins and outs of the opening chapters of Genesis, they are recorded in the form of a synopsis through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and probably by Moses.
I have never seen any indication that they are merely a story or a parable full of metaphor and hyperbole...indeed the way in which the events and characters are further referenced throughout Scripture precludes this idea as I see it, especially when you read 1Corinthians 15, which categorically makes reference to this part of the word of G-d and says IT IS WRITTEN...
45 So also it is written, The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
If we pursue the whole idea which erodes the word of G-d...what do we say when the Bible tells us He made Adam from the dust of the ground..are we to rationlise it or explain it away. In the same breath when Jesus spat in the dust and formed eyes in the blind man...doesn't such a thing speak of the Creator in action? John 9:
1As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2And His disciples asked Him, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind? 3Jesus answered, It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world. 6When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, 7and said to him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
The Apostle Paul references Adam...just as it is recorded in Genesis...and he was one of the greatest intellectuals of his era, and probably the greatest theologian of all time...
1 Tim 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Adam is included in several genealogies, including that of the L-rd's.
I could go on, but you see my point...so when you say,
"In my own reading, I see no necessary contradiction between Genesis 1 and the theory of evolution. The point of Genesis 1 is not, necessarily, to give a literal account of creation with a timed chronology; more likely (to my reading anyway), it is trying to affirm that God created, created good, and created in a way leading towards Christ. Evolution does not contradict this (or need not necessarily contradict this). "
As your brother in Messiah I would strongly disagree, and humbly suggest that the weight of biblical support for a straight-forward reading and understanding of Genesis is overwhelming...and to contemplate anything else even in the light of so-called scientific evidence, actually calls into question the veracity of YHWH.
Obviously, we disagree. In preview of our potential discussion, I would likely point to three things:I have never seen any indication that they are merely a story or a parable full of metaphor and hyperbole...indeed the way in which the events and characters are further referenced throughout Scripture precludes this idea as I see it, especially when you read 1Corinthians 15, which categorically makes reference to this part of the word of G-d and says IT IS WRITTEN...
45 So also it is written, The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
If we pursue the whole idea which erodes the word of G-d...what do we say when the Bible tells us He made Adam from the dust of the ground..are we to rationlise it or explain it away. In the same breath when Jesus spat in the dust and formed eyes in the blind man...doesn't such a thing speak of the Creator in action? John 9:
1As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2And His disciples asked Him, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind? 3Jesus answered, It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world. 6When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, 7and said to him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
The Apostle Paul references Adam...just as it is recorded in Genesis...and he was one of the greatest intellectuals of his era, and probably the greatest theologian of all time...
1 Tim 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Adam is included in several genealogies, including that of the L-rd's.
I could go on, but you see my point...so when you say,
"In my own reading, I see no necessary contradiction between Genesis 1 and the theory of evolution. The point of Genesis 1 is not, necessarily, to give a literal account of creation with a timed chronology; more likely (to my reading anyway), it is trying to affirm that God created, created good, and created in a way leading towards Christ. Evolution does not contradict this (or need not necessarily contradict this). "
As your brother in Messiah I would strongly disagree, and humbly suggest that the weight of biblical support for a straight-forward reading and understanding of Genesis is overwhelming...and to contemplate anything else even in the light of so-called scientific evidence, actually calls into question the veracity of YHWH.
1) the assumption of the simple reading of Scripture is a false assumption; there is no such thing (and, indeed, the ancient church - even in the pages of the New Testament - make it clear that Scripture was thought to be quite cryptic and in need of interpretation).
2) you rather ironically accuse me of using a modernist or humanist lens when my whole point has been quite the opposite - the two fold assumption(s) that A) Scriptural Truth is primarily contained in historical accuracy and that B) the Scriptures ought to be used for historical reconstruction are BOTH quite post-Renaissance / modernist in their tone. The earlier Christians, of whom I could cite quite a few starting within the pages of the New Testament and continuing unabated for centuries, did NOT assume EITHER of those two things.
The intent to use Genesis 1 as a literal record of history is the modernist and humanist assumption; my desire to use typological and allegorical understandings of the text is quite PRE-modern and very, very UN-humanist. My whole point is that the theistic evolution v. young earth creationism is an irrelevant product of needless hold-overs from modernist Christianity, and that the emphasis people place on that debate distracts from the real meaning of the text: Christ.
3) you assume that where Scripture refers to itself, it does so in a literal way. If a typological interpretation works in one part of Scripture, it works again when Scripture refers to that same story.
If you like, feel free to copy-paste your post here into ST. Justin's and I'll go more line by line (or take my three brief pseudo-replies and start from there - I'm flexible). If you'd prefer not to, that's fine to. I just wanted to offer.
In Christ,
Macarius
