• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The historicity of Adam

truthseeker32

Lost in the Cosmos
Nov 30, 2010
1,066
52
✟24,010.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Seeker, have you read CS Lewis's "The Problem of Pain"? It helped me tremendously on this sort of question.
The basic short answer is that love and life are worth the risk of death and suffering; that existence is better than non-existence, that your desire that there be no suffering is better than no desire whatsoever, and if we don't exist, then there will be no "we" to desire anything.
But it's much better to read the book than agonize for pages on a thread about an issue that has clear and thought-out answers.
I have read it a few times. I like C.S. Lewis. My general opinion, though, is that he doesn't completely solve the problem. Christianity seems to hold that, ultimately, free will is superior to horrendous evils such as eternal damnation. I cannot get on board with that. I cannot see how preserving an individual's free will is worth leaving them to suffer eternally. Otherwise, though, I can at least acknowledge that there is a greater good behind it all.
 
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,514
New York
✟219,964.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I do not believe it is un-Christian to read the glorious story of Salvation as pertaining to Adam as being allegorical.

In a podcast I listened to recently it was proposed that the early church did not consider the Genesis account of creation to be literal and that it was a development with Augustine and his doctrine of 'Original Sin' which began the literalistic trend.
.


While Augustine is blamed for quite a bit, I think its a cop out by the modernists. Which eastern fathers were cited for a purely allegorical interpretation of Adam and Eve? While allegories May be seen in the creation story, to claim it was invented or that it was developed by Augustine is simply a lie.

To claim there's even a consensus among the greek and pre Augustine fathers of a primarily allegorical interpretation flies in the face of the fact that we have always taught that from the first man Adam came the fall and through the new man Jesus came life. That Eve while still a virgin sinned and wrought death but the new Eve the Theotokos also a virgin brought forth life. If Adam and eve are simply fictional allegories, so is the entire gospel and Spong is a genius.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
42,374
21,051
Earth
✟1,674,874.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I have read it a few times. I like C.S. Lewis. My general opinion, though, is that he doesn't completely solve the problem. Christianity seems to hold that, ultimately, free will is superior to horrendous evils such as eternal damnation. I cannot get on board with that. I cannot see how preserving an individual's free will is worth leaving them to suffer eternally. Otherwise, though, I can at least acknowledge that there is a greater good behind it all.

well, remember if they truly have free will, then all have the free will to accept God. it is possible. you keep seeming to only see the downside, where the opposite must be true if we really have free will, and there are well respected Orthodox who believe in it. I say, your best bet is not to worry over it, but pray that all will be saved, and know that when the end does happen, we will all see how it pans out.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,548
5,316
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟495,019.00
Country
Montenegro
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I have read it a few times. I like C.S. Lewis. My general opinion, though, is that he doesn't completely solve the problem. Christianity seems to hold that, ultimately, free will is superior to horrendous evils such as eternal damnation. I cannot get on board with that. I cannot see how preserving an individual's free will is worth leaving them to suffer eternally. Otherwise, though, I can at least acknowledge that there is a greater good behind it all.

I highlighted what seems strange to me in your words. "Leave them?" In what sense? On the one hand, Orthodox theology holds that our God is a consuming fire, and it is His presence of love which causes torment to the one who rejects Him. On the other hand, if a person consistently hardens his will and cries "Leave me alone!" and refuses all communion with God, whose fault is that? You seem to read damnation as victimhood rather than choice, as something "God does to us" rather than something we do to ourselves.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,548
5,316
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟495,019.00
Country
Montenegro
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
While Augustine is blamed for quite a bit, I think its a cop out by the modernists. Which eastern fathers were cited for a purely allegorical interpretation of Adam and Eve? While allegories May be seen in the creation story, to claim it was invented or that it was developed by Augustine is simply a lie.

To claim there's even a consensus among the greek and pre Augustine fathers of a primarily allegorical interpretation flies in the face of the fact that we have always taught that from the first man Adam came the fall and through the new man Jesus came life. That Eve while still a virgin sinned and wrought death but the new Eve the Theotokos also a virgin brought forth life. If Adam and eve are simply fictional allegories, so is the entire gospel and Spong is a genius.
I have to agree with buzuxi. Sorry, Dewi, I don't think your view consistent with Orthodox Christianity. An allegory has to have always been understood as allegory. The lie is in taking a thing always understood as literally true (and this would extend back before the technical beginning of the Church back into Jewish history) and deciding that it is not true, that the ancient Jews didn't know what they were talking about, that the geneologies which connect Christ to Adam are mere "allegory", etc etc.

You have to decide which authority you trust more, gentlemen. Holding modern popular scientific authority (a fine thing in its proper sphere, but conducted by fallible humans without divine inspiration) on an equal or greater level relative to Church Tradition (which is a continuation of the ancient Jewish Tradition) leads to trying to serve both God and mammon. We can rationalize all we like, but when we come to flat-out contradiction - and allegorizing Adam is exactly that - if he is my patron saint, are you suggesting that I am praying to an allegory? - then we must choose either the Church or the world. I choose the Church. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,548
5,316
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟495,019.00
Country
Montenegro
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
All theories in all subjects are interpretation of evidence. Theology, science, philosophy, history....

No, people are not being unreasonable to say that theories may be unsure. That is why in all of these subjects there is a dialectic and exchange of ideas involved.

But as far as any particular theory - yes, people may well be unreasonable in rejecting it - often people reject things for foolish reasons. Especially if their rejection of that theory is not consistant with how they treat other theories. If the level of evidence you demand for one set of beliefs in science is much higher than what you demand in a historical discussion, that is unreasonable. If you dismiss a theory without understanding it well or looking at the evidence or on the basis of misunderstanding it, that is unreasonable. If your reasons for dismissing a theory are simply illogical, that is unreasonable. A particular theory needs to be rejected specifically, not by saying all knowledge is unsure, unless you want to take the approach of a Cynic, who is assuredly not going to be a Christian.

As far as variables we do not know about causing nature to operate differently in the past - the likelihood of this in some areas of study is not high. In others it is more probable such a thing could occur. But in most cases, if that were to happen it would actually leave visible evidence. If radioactive decay were to behave differently for some period of time, it would leave other evidence besides getting the wrong dates when using it for dating.

I have to say I am always doubtful when people use that line of thought, that they really believe it - no one actually acts ike they believe it when it counts. The reason is that it would not be true only about the past - it would equally apply to the future. So only on the basis that there might be an unknown variable that caused an important change in basic natural processes and also left no evidence, people are willing to reject dating methods. (Something with very little practical effect on their daily life.) On the other hand, the fact that the basic processes could change because of an unknown variable does not stop them from putting their family on an airplane, or taking a Tylenol, or planting a field of wheat to grow next year. Yet if the plane falls out of the sky, the pill is suddenly poisonous, or the wheat fails to grow, there could be real consequences. And we would have no chance of knowing if such a thing were going to happen in the future - there would be no sign, as in the past.

Sorry about the delay!
I was on vacation, then airports, flight delays, trying to not lose any kids in the process, having to drive home in the middle of the night, immediately jumping into work...
I thought I would have to think hard on this one (and I put those off). But when I think about it, my response to the Dewi-Buzuxi exchange covers most of what I would say - the limits of reason and the folly of relying on human fallibility in theological matters, but also add that a lynchpin of your argument - relying on science in everyday life - simply doesn't apply here. Like Chesterton said, I am not going to see my arboreal ancestor fall out of the tree if I get my understanding of the origin of man wrong. I don't have to rely on science in everything just because I do in practical matters. When I DO rely on science, I am still having faith. And boy, when planes do wobbly landings in heavy winds I feel the need of faith most of all!

And so, reason comes to the borders of its country, beyond which it may not go safely or sanely. I do trust it - up to a point. The sane thing isto trust science where and as long as it is useful to do so, but not to rely on it to shape our eternal and cosmic understandings. It is a tool, a thing to be used, not the thing that determines all usage.
I am aware of the simplifications, but in general it is the mistake of Darwin, to think that biology is everything, just as "economics is everything" was the mistake of Marx, and "sex is everything" - the mistake of Freud. We should keep the sciences in their place, and not allow them to be the prime/controlling authority determining our cosmology.
 
Upvote 0

AndrewEOC

Newbie
Jun 3, 2013
80
4
✟22,715.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Next on my reading list for this topic is Theodosius Dobzhansky's The Biology of Ultimate Concern. Dobzhansky (1900-1975) was a leading 20th century pioneer in evolutionary biology and remained a committed Orthodox Christian his entire life (his personal correspondence and diaries that are now available to us reveal, along with his published works, that the faith was always an integral part of his life and work, that he made efforts to pray daily, and that he was a regular church attendee and communicant, including receiving Communion on Mt. Athos in 1963*). This book includes his thoughts on the relationship between science and religion/theology, and presumably, how he approached work in his field as an Orthodox Christian.

*I mention this due to Fr. Seraphim Rose's allegation in Genesis, Creation, and Early Man that Dobzhansky was an "apostate" who "never goes to church" and was "quite beyond religion."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟38,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Sorry about the delay!
I was on vacation, then airports, flight delays, trying to not lose any kids in the process, having to drive home in the middle of the night, immediately jumping into work...
I thought I would have to think hard on this one (and I put those off). But when I think about it, my response to the Dewi-Buzuxi exchange covers most of what I would say - the limits of reason and the folly of relying on human fallibility in theological matters, but also add that a lynchpin of your argument - relying on science in everyday life - simply doesn't apply here. Like Chesterton said, I am not going to see my arboreal ancestor fall out of the tree if I get my understanding of the origin of man wrong. I don't have to rely on science in everything just because I do in practical matters. When I DO rely on science, I am still having faith. And boy, when planes do wobbly landings in heavy winds I feel the need of faith most of all!

And so, reason comes to the borders of its country, beyond which it may not go safely or sanely. I do trust it - up to a point. The sane thing isto trust science where and as long as it is useful to do so, but not to rely on it to shape our eternal and cosmic understandings. It is a tool, a thing to be used, not the thing that determines all usage.
I am aware of the simplifications, but in general it is the mistake of Darwin, to think that biology is everything, just as "economics is everything" was the mistake of Marx, and "sex is everything" - the mistake of Freud. We should keep the sciences in their place, and not allow them to be the prime/controlling authority determining our cosmology.

It is always a good thing to not lose children. I hope you had a relaxing vacation.

I don't think it is particularly accurate to claim Darwin thought that "evolution is everything" although he had some followers that thought that. But we are talking about evolutionary theory rather than Darwinism. And evolutionary theory has no necessity that anyone should say anything like that. So it seems a red herring to me, confusing the discussion more than illuminating it.

But as for the rest of what you said - I'm afraid to me it rather seems like you are saying you will believe science when it is convenient, but not when it isn't, and don't want to bother to actually investigate anything it says on its merits.

Which would be fine in itself - that is rather how I treat my car, being neither inclined to nor very knowledgeable about mechanics. But I am in no position to make any sort of claims about mechanics either, or the merits of one type of vehicle over another.

As far as relying in practical matters and not others - the principles behind both are the same. many of the same principles that allow scientists to make drugs that work, machines that fly, etc, are the ones that allow them to make claims about the past. You don't hAVE to do anything, but when you are accepting of work based on those principles in one instance, but not another, I think it raises the question of internal consistency. When we talk to non-religious people about religion, we try and ask them to be consistent about the way they are applying reason. We have no place to do so if we do not also demand that of ourselves.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
8,903
3,251
Pennsylvania, USA
✟958,761.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The thing is in the final judgement it seems that there will be many sheep (matthew 25:31-46) who may not have known the Lord & never knowing to deny or believe in Him (but He knows them) & will be received into the heavenly kingdom. I cannot help but think of unrepentant jihadists who target Christians & other alleged infidels as becoming goats & then of the Moslems who are forging human chains to protect Christians & others from terrorism as being the Lord's sheep. So there is free will to do right & wrong & then ultimately the will of God to judge.

John 5:26-29

New King James Version (NKJV)

26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,548
5,316
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟495,019.00
Country
Montenegro
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It is always a good thing to not lose children. I hope you had a relaxing vacation.

I don't think it is particularly accurate to claim Darwin thought that "evolution is everything" although he had some followers that thought that. But we are talking about evolutionary theory rather than Darwinism. And evolutionary theory has no necessity that anyone should say anything like that. So it seems a red herring to me, confusing the discussion more than illuminating it.

But as for the rest of what you said - I'm afraid to me it rather seems like you are saying you will believe science when it is convenient, but not when it isn't, and don't want to bother to actually investigate anything it says on its merits.

Which would be fine in itself - that is rather how I treat my car, being neither inclined to nor very knowledgeable about mechanics. But I am in no position to make any sort of claims about mechanics either, or the merits of one type of vehicle over another.

As far as relying in practical matters and not others - the principles behind both are the same. many of the same principles that allow scientists to make drugs that work, machines that fly, etc, are the ones that allow them to make claims about the past. You don't hAVE to do anything, but when you are accepting of work based on those principles in one instance, but not another, I think it raises the question of internal consistency. When we talk to non-religious people about religion, we try and ask them to be consistent about the way they are applying reason. We have no place to do so if we do not also demand that of ourselves.

Well, what you see as me turning to convenience I see as denying science a more exalted position than it deserves; the philosophy that governs science a thing wholly ignored in the discussions. It is limited to the natural world, and is fallible, and anywhere ot seriously challenges faith and the Holy Tradition and consensus of the Church, I'll go with the Church, thank you very much. I think it more than sufficiently consistent, because I believe absolutely in human fallibility. I believe even atheists get some things right, not because their cosmic conclusions are correct, but because they are coincidentally right in some of their understandings. That's how I think we fly in planes, for instance. But sometimes, the planes crash.
So I deny the charge of inconsistency.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
St. Theophan the Recluse, St Feofan Zatvornik, Nastavleniya v duhovnoi zhisni. – Pskov-Pechery Monastery of Holy Dormition: Mosc. Patriarchate Publ., 1994,S.V.Bufeev. Why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist
“The positive teaching of the Church serves to know whether a concept is from the Truth. This is a litmus test for all teachings. Whatever agrees with it, you should accept it, whatever does not- – reject. One can do it without further deliberations.”


Sozertsanie I razmyshlenie. Moscow, Pravilo very, 1998, S.V.Bufeev. Why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist
“Science goes forward fast, let it do so. But if they infer something inconsistent with the Divine Revelation, they are definitely off the right path in life, do not follow them.”
 
Upvote 0

AndrewEOC

Newbie
Jun 3, 2013
80
4
✟22,715.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
St. Theophan the Recluse, St Feofan Zatvornik, Nastavleniya v duhovnoi zhisni. – Pskov-Pechery Monastery of Holy Dormition: Mosc. Patriarchate Publ., 1994,S.V.Bufeev. Why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist
“The positive teaching of the Church serves to know whether a concept is from the Truth. This is a litmus test for all teachings. Whatever agrees with it, you should accept it, whatever does not- – reject. One can do it without further deliberations.”


Sozertsanie I razmyshlenie. Moscow, Pravilo very, 1998, S.V.Bufeev. Why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist
“Science goes forward fast, let it do so. But if they infer something inconsistent with the Divine Revelation, they are definitely off the right path in life, do not follow them.”

And yet there is no Orthodox evolutionist who thinks evolution is inconsistent with, or does not stem from, Divine Truth.

Jckstraw, let me pose a hypothetical. You are a priest and someone comes to you who accepts the validity of evolutionary theory, while fully believing that God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. Do you make denying evolution a necessary condition for their being baptized? Chrismated? Receiving Communion?
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,548
5,316
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟495,019.00
Country
Montenegro
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
And yet there is no Orthodox evolutionist who thinks evolution is inconsistent with, or does not stem from, Divine Truth.

Jckstraw, let me pose a hypothetical. You are a priest and someone comes to you who accepts the validity of evolutionary theory, while fully believing that God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. Do you make denying evolution a necessary condition for their being baptized? Chrismated? Receiving Communion?

Whoa, whoa, whoa!
The scientific THEORY of evolution (as distinct from what CS Lewis defined as the Myth of Evolutionism) is NOT Divine Truth, nor does it stem from it. It is a theory, currently popular in our time, that has no dogmatic force in the Church. A person may believe it and be Orthodox, some believe in black cats and ladders, also not Orthodox teaching, and yet they are baptized, receive Communion, and so on. A person may believe that life exists on other worlds, which, in terms of our assumptions seems mathematically likely. But none of these things are ultimately vital for salvation. Can he recite the Creed? That is a condition for baptism.

Personally, I believe that modern scientific interpretation of evidence, the philosophy though which all evidence is viewed and understood, begins with assumptionsof an evolved and uncreated Man, and then everything is bent o it that theory. Andcwe are expected to accept this "gospel" on faith. I accept that scientists can make planes fly. I can even imagine the idea of God creating man slowly. But it is not the science I question so much here, as the philosophy driving it.

I don't care if the whole world buys it. I have a brain and think for myself, so I
don't. Evolution says that there is no such thing as Man, that we are all in a permanent state of change, that we are becoming we-know-not-what. I don't think the acceptance of this idea brave, reasonable or intelligent. I think it a cowardly surrender to "experts" who "know better than we do", bowing to the priests of our time who invoke the magic word "science" at which we should fall silent in awe.

Again, I think science can reveal valid things to us, and I even believe in observed adaptive change. But I think human evolution is not one of them.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
42,374
21,051
Earth
✟1,674,874.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
And yet there is no Orthodox evolutionist who thinks evolution is inconsistent with, or does not stem from, Divine Truth.

and there is no Orthodox Creationist who sees a literal interpretation to be inconsistent with science. the problem is there are more (and by more I mean practically all) saints who are on the side of Creation than evolution, even post Darwin.

and it's not much to say that an Orthodox evolutionist accepts evolution.
 
Upvote 0

AndrewEOC

Newbie
Jun 3, 2013
80
4
✟22,715.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
The scientific THEORY of evolution (as distinct from what CS Lewis defined as the Myth of Evolutionism) is NOT Divine Truth, nor does it stem from it. It is a theory, currently popular in our time, that has no dogmatic force in the Church. A person may believe it and be Orthodox, some believe in black cats and ladders, also not Orthodox teaching, and yet they are baptized, receive Communion, and so on. A person may believe that life exists on other worlds, which, in terms of our assumptions seems mathematically likely. But none of these things are ultimately vital for salvation. Can he recite the Creed? That is a condition for baptism.

Do you believe that knowledge of the natural world comes from God? Do you believe that God was and is directly involved in creation? If so, why would you think it impossible for someone who accepts evolution to see in it Divine Truth?

Reciting the Creed would be impossible, or blasphemous, for such a person who did not see God as involved in evolution. It would mean that God is not "maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible."

Personally, I believe that modern scientific interpretation of evidence, the philosophy though which all evidence is viewed and understood, begins with assumptionsof an evolved and uncreated Man, and then everything is bent o it that theory. Andcwe are expected to accept this "gospel" on faith. I accept that scientists can make planes fly. I can even imagine the idea of God creating man slowly. But it is not the science I question so much here, as the philosophy driving it.

I don't care if the whole world buys it. I have a brain and think for myself, so I
don't. Evolution says that there is no such thing as Man, that we are all in a permanent state of change, that we are becoming we-know-not-what. I don't think the acceptance of this idea brave, reasonable or intelligent. I think it a cowardly surrender to "experts" who "know better than we do", bowing to the priests of our time who invoke the magic word "science" at which we should fall silent in awe.

Again, I think science can reveal valid things to us, and I even believe in observed adaptive change. But I think human evolution is not one of them.

Not everyone who accepts evolution does so because they blindly decide to leave it to "experts." Critical or skeptical thinking is very far from being unique to creationists. And, a unique characteristic of man is his ability (as Chesterton notes) to shape and transform the world around him, rather than be shaped by it, therefore considerably changing the impact of natural selection and the evolutionary process on Homo sapiens.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
42,374
21,051
Earth
✟1,674,874.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe that knowledge of the natural world comes from God? Do you believe that God was and is directly involved in creation? If so, why would you think it impossible for evolutionists to see Divine Truth in evolution?

Reciting the Creed would be impossible, or blasphemous, for such a person who did not see God as involved in evolution. It would mean that God is not "maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible."

that's the problem, God did not create death. for evolution to be compatible, God would have created death and used it from the beginning, proclaiming it to be good (because He only created good things), and then for some reason calling it an enemy to be destroyed when Christ came.

the Bible speaks of a restoration at the end of all things. well, there is no restoration if the world was not originally a paradise. if death and corruption exist from the beginning, then nothing is technically being restored.
 
Upvote 0

AndrewEOC

Newbie
Jun 3, 2013
80
4
✟22,715.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
that's the problem, God did not create death. for evolution to be compatible, God would have created death and used it from the beginning, proclaiming it to be good (because He only created good things), and then for some reason calling it an enemy to be destroyed when Christ came.

the Bible speaks of a restoration at the end of all things. well, there is no restoration if the world was not originally a paradise. if death and corruption exist from the beginning, then nothing is technically being restored.

Here is quote from someone on another forum on this issue. I thought he phrased it better than I could hope to:

minasoliman said:
B) This is a forgivable thought, as it's plain to see that this does indeed become a contention in the Church based on Patristic understanding of creation. Nevertheless, I hinged my thoughts on St. Athanasius' quote before, that we are the only creatures, who by nature impermanent, receives the grace of the Image of God, that is immortality and incorruption. Thus, no other creature created in God's green earth seems to have immortality and incorruption, since this is engrained in the Image of God itself. I've also made the argument that the idea that biological death for all other creatures besides humanity as a result of Adam's fall can be considered a theologomenoun. Just as the first 300 years of Church fathers unanimously believed that angels can copulate with humans to give birth to the Nephilim, only to find that Sts. Augustine and John Cassian to be the first ones to refute such a thought proves that despite Patristic consensus of the time, it was unnecessary for dogma, and therefore theologomenoun. In fact, the blessed and honored Fr. Seraphim Rose claims that St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom were also against such a thought, but I have yet to find proof of that.

As time moves on, we will see a shift in an issue where I feel is not dogma. In fact, there is a sense that biological death is a necessary act of mercy of God for the sins of Adam, despite the fact that it's a tragedy and unnatural for any human being in the spiritual sense, as St. Irenaeus teaches (Against Heresies 3.23.6):

Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as some venture to assert, but because He pitied him, [and did not desire] that he should continue a sinner for ever, nor that the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and evil interminable and irremediable. But He set a bound to his [state of] sin, by interposing death, and thus causing sin to cease, (Romans 6:7) putting an end to it by the dissolution of the flesh, which should take place in the earth, so that man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God.

I find it rather interesting that God is even involved having to block the source of immortality to Adam so that he may not live in sin forever. This is not to contradict the idea that Adam brought death to himself. But it also raises the question even in biological death, it is not only a punishment Adam brought upon himself, but a necessity prepared to help Adam and all humanity in their sinful state. And what great prophetic wonder it is, that God may use death to destroy both sin and death in His incarnation!

Therefore the death and struggle of individual species of animals resulting only to give birth to higher species and forms of life shows us God teaching us that through a massive cycling of progressive processes, a plan for man was to appear, so that all of natures pangs and pains may be fulfilled in man's immortality and bringing all nature into unison with God. However, because of man's failure, all of nature's species continued in pain, and in fact, the world began to fail. Man continues to lead the Earth into bad shape, even while it progressed in knowledge and technology. The way they treat the Earth and they way they sinned is a reminder of the dire sinful state of man and the sinful results it brings to the world.

In addition, the world is one giant organism, by which we are to be stewards of its whole. We understand that there's a necessary balance of biological life from the microscopic to the predator/prey relationships, both plants and animals. The diversity of the world is but organs and tissues and cells of the Earth. The Earth never experienced death. Rather, it experienced growth and change. The Earth in its vast globe is created by the right "Side" of the Father, just as Eve was said to have been made out of the side of Eve, and the Church born out of the pierced side of Christ. The Earth's waters and ground became but a vast womb, by which the God seeded with the Holy Spirit (wind hovering the waters) and the Logos (the Light), by which the clouds, the oceans, the vegetations, the soil, the sun, the moon, the stars, the sea creatures, the creatures of the air, and the creatures of the ground all were processes of development in the womb, all of which had their roles whether it be as yolk sac, or placenta, or the growth of the fetus itself, by which many both grow and others necessarily "apoptose" (not necrose), to give birth to mankind. Therefore, the Earth never died in its vastness. The Earth simply went through life-changing processes for the sake of mankind. Rather than see it from the point of view of individual animals dying, what we learn is the animals are a continuum of individual parts of a whole system of the Earth, where they cannot exist without other parts.

But when man is born, God truly intervenes and grants man His divine image, as St. Athanasius teaches. For man in the Scriptures is both dust from the Earth and "breathe" from above. Therefore, the divine image is not something that was evolved, as you seem to think evolution entails. Whatever was the perfect "ape" that God saw, God took from its very beginning of conception to bless it with the Image, and placed it in Paradise. Man has the power to not depend on Earth in and of itself if we achieve greatness. There is no doubt even atheists want to work in such a manner so as to break free from the earthliness we latch on, that they work to advance humanity that we may not depend on the Earth, leaving her to float away in the proverbial iceberg of the universe, whereas we as Christians work to advance humanity that we may bring the ailing Earth to God, by faith (in God and in the Church) and by works (almsgiving, fasting, doing our jobs in the world, whether in science or any other field) through His grace.
 
Upvote 0

truthseeker32

Lost in the Cosmos
Nov 30, 2010
1,066
52
✟24,010.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Just to clarify, a scientific theory isn't just a hypothesis.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. The latter has the fortunate status of being undeniable whereas the former requires years of study in order to understand it adequately.

Regardless of where everyone ends up, I recommend they learn about evolution from the experts rather than monks who may not have ever picked up a science textbook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndrewEOC
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
2.) The book demonstrates with due evidence that one trend in the Patristic exegetical approach to Genesis was decisively christological. In other words, Christ is essential to how we understand Genesis. To this end, St. Irenaeus argued that "Christ- the crucified Christ- is the one by whom we rightly read the Scriptures" and that the crucified and risen Christ actually precedes Adam, so that Adam is "made in the image of the incarnate Christ (AH 4.33.4)." The exegesis of other fathers is characterized by a similar typology.

this is one of the things that really bugs me about this whole topic - people love to get whacky with time, and they can typically get away with it because time is mysterious. Of course the crucified and risen Christ is the lens through which we read all Scripture- I'm sure every Father would agree with that. So we could say the crucified and risen Christ "precedes" Adam in terms of how we approach theology - for instance, the risen Christ shows us what true human nature is, and not Adam - but to say that the Crucified and risen Christ precedes Adam chronologically is to deny the historical fact of the Incarnation. The Fathers teach that appearances of Christ in the OT were appearances of the pre-Incarnate Christ. Christ is not eternally Incarnate, and therefore not eternally crucified and risen - if He were then human nature would be uncreated and in no need of the Cross and Resurrection anyways.

3.) An exception to this christological focus is Theophilus of Antioch, who argues for the strictly factual character of Genesis. Theophilus uses this argument as a rebuttal to polytheistic mythology, and with an understanding that "myth" carried a connotation of falsity or duplicity.

its been a while since I've read St. Theophilus all the way through, but I highly doubt he would object to seeing typology in Genesis ... this seems to be something Bouteneff does - if St. Theophilus does not specifically write about the typology of Genesis then he must accept only the literal level! The Theokritoffs and others make this argument against Fr. Seraphim as well, and yet nowhere does Fr. Seraphim say that the literal level is all there is, nor that it's the most important for the spiritual life. Bouteneff also tried to argue that Jewish apocalyptic texts actually DENY that Adam is the cause of death, and yet that seemed to be entirely based on them perhaps not using the name "Adam" directly. He also draws a false divide between Adam being literally the first human, and Adam being a symbol for humanity - Bouteneff seems to see these as contradictions, but of course they are not. Adam is a symbol for all of humanity BECAUSE he is the first human.

4.) The later Cappadocian fathers resisted radical allegory, e.g. the type promoted by Origen which disassociated Genesis entirely from any grounding in physical reality (exasperated, Basil comments that "Grass is grass!") and "where the original word bears no perception to its alleged true (spiritual) meaning." Nevertheless spiritual edification remains the ultimate goal for Basil and he "interpreted more literally, typologically, practically, or allegorically depending on his hearers and on the needs of the moment." The biblical narrative, he insists, is "not about physical science"; in fact, "it is enough to say, 'God created heaven and earth.'"

exactly - literal and allegory are not mutually exclusive. Bouteneff is quite right, here.

5.) An important distinction is drawn between allegory and typology. On the nature of typology there seems to be little consensus: Melito of Sardis "spoke consistently of the obsolescence of the type," while Tertullian believed that "something used figuratively to express some other thing must have a prior existence for itself (De res. 30)." Bouteneff aptly points out, however, that "types can be found in entirely fictional persons and events, even characters in parables. And in the liturgical and prayer life of the church, figures from historical chronicles often exist side by side with manifestly fictional ones. A fourth-century prayer attributed to Basil and used in the Orthodox Church to this day features the line 'Receive me, O Christ, who loves all, as you received the prostitute, the thief, the publican, and the prodigal.' The first two appear in the NT as participants in Christ's early life; the second two are characters in his parables. But they are invoked together in one breath, playing identical roles in evoking a single attitude of prayer."

so we need to look to the Tradition to discern if Adam is historical or literary. The same liturgical tradition that Bouteneff here points us to also celebrates Adam and Eve as Saints. We do not celebrate the Prodigal Son as a Saint.
 
Upvote 0