The historicity of Adam

[ArmyMatt]

I think the problem is posting things like "why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist," equating evolution to black cat superstitions, saying they will follow St. Nicholas and punch you in the nose for being a heretic, etc. that might lead a person into thinking they are not welcome in the Church if they believe in theistic evolution.

I have yet to see anyone on here come to that conclusion. usually, I see the opposite.

 

[AndrewEOC]

I have yet to see anyone on here come to that conclusion. usually, I see the opposite.

As truthseeker32 just pointed out, the general vibe from many here seems to be that theistic evolutionists are unwelcome in the Orthodox Church, and that's supported by what I just posted. So, that makes at least two people on this thread arriving at that conclusion.

 

[ArmyMatt]

As truthseeker32 just pointed out, the general vibe from many here seems to be that theistic evolutionists are unwelcome in the Orthodox Church, and that's supported by what I just posted. So, that makes at least two people on this thread arriving at that conclusion.

yeah, but since this is a net forum, I don't think that was actually said. there is a difference between saying you think something is wrong, and saying that everyone must agree.

 

[AndrewEOC]

yeah, but since this is a net forum, I don't think that was actually said. there is a difference between saying you think something is wrong, and saying that everyone must agree.

Again...

I think the problem is posting things like "why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist," equating evolution to black cat superstitions, saying they will follow St. Nicholas and punch you in the nose for being a heretic, etc. that might lead a person into thinking they are not welcome in the Church if they believe in theistic evolution.

 

[rusmeister]

Well, internet Orthodoxy is... Internet Orthodoxy.
Saying Adam was/is not a real person DOES rate a punch in the nose - correction and welcome, provided you accept the correction! Saying Adam is oly an allegory makes a lie out of the Holy Forefathers, which ARE a matter of Orthodox dogma, and so it really IS heretical to teach that they were not real.

But my priest accepts the general theory of evolution; I think he's wrong; so what?

I can imagine how a person can both accept the reality of Adam AND that he somehow evolved, though I think it untrue, and wouldn't see the person as out of communion.

To Army Matt - everyone MUST agree on Orthodox dogma - but there is no dogma on a theory that was not clearly formulated until little over a hundred years ago - no time at all in Orthodoxy.

 

[jckstraw72]

for clarity on "why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist" -- i posted those quotes from St. Theophan because they complemented Rus' post immediately before mine -- and I gave the source. it was not intended to be an advertisement for that particular article.

 

[AndrewEOC]

Well, internet Orthodoxy is... Internet Orthodoxy.
Saying Adam was/is not a real person DOES rate a punch in the nose - correction and welcome, provided you accept the correction! Saying Adam is oly an allegory makes a lie out of the Holy Forefathers, which ARE a matter of Orthodox dogma, and so it really IS heretical to teach that they were not real.

But my priest accepts the general theory of evolution; I think he's wrong; so what?

I can imagine how a person can both accept the reality of Adam AND that he somehow evolved, though I think it untrue, and wouldn't see the person as out of communion.

To Army Matt - everyone MUST agree on Orthodox dogma - but there is no dogma on a theory that was not clearly formulated until little over a hundred years ago - no time at all in Orthodoxy.

Nobody said or is trying to argue that Adam definitively did not exist. The most I posted was Bouteneff's argument that the question of Adam's historical existence may not matter as much as you seem to think it does.

 

[ArmyMatt]

To Army Matt - everyone MUST agree on Orthodox dogma - but there is no dogma on a theory that was not clearly formulated until little over a hundred years ago - no time at all in Orthodoxy.

I agree rus, what I was pointing out was that Orthodox evolutionists are not treated like Arius on the recieving end of St Nicholas' fist. I think I even started my comments here by that there are evolutionists I know that are more devout than I am. it's just that some Fathers are very clear where they see things, which is one of the reasons I don't agree with evolution.

 

[ArmyMatt]

to Andrew, my point was that no one here actually equated evolution to black cat superstitions. it was a wrong assumption that the Creationists here never made.

 

[truthseeker32]

Forgive me if I misunderstood intentions. I saw people posting things like "Why Orthodox Christians Cannot be Evolutionists" and I naturally assumed the person posting the article agreed with the sentiment. If everyone here acknowledges that it is acceptable to be an evolutionist or creationist in Orthodoxy then I have nothing more to say.

 

[jckstraw72]

Forgive me if I misunderstood intentions. I saw people posting things like "Why Orthodox Christians Cannot be Evolutionists" and I naturally assumed the person posting the article agreed with the sentiment. If everyone here acknowledges that it is acceptable to be an evolutionist or creationist in Orthodoxy then I have nothing more to say.

well the author of that article is trying to demonstrate why, as he believes, it is theologically inconsistent to be Orthodox and an evolutionist. on this I DO agree with him. but he's not arguing that it's literally not ALLOWED to be Orthodox and an evolutionist - as if you would be kicked out or barred from entering in the first place. i've met Fr. Constantine - he's a wonderful man! I have no doubt that he would warmly welcome you to his parish.

 

[AndrewEOC]

Maybe a distinction should be made between what is permitted and what is, as truthseeker32 says, "acceptable." "Acceptable" is a very subjective word.

In any case it's all nonsense to think one can't be fully Orthodox while accepting evolution, when there are many fine and reputable Orthodox theologians who don't see an inconsistency. Truthseeker, if Kallistos Ware, perhaps the most renowned Orthodox theologian in the West today, openly accepts evolutionary theory, I don't think there's any reason to let this get in the way of your joining the same Church.

My priest, also an evolutionist and one of the most devout men I know, would be thrilled to have you at our parish.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Forgive me if I misunderstood intentions. I saw people posting things like "Why Orthodox Christians Cannot be Evolutionists" and I naturally assumed the person posting the article agreed with the sentiment. If everyone here acknowledges that it is acceptable to be an evolutionist or creationist in Orthodoxy then I have nothing more to say.

you're good man, you would be accepted into Orthodoxy believing in evolution. there are many who do. no one disputes that

 

[AndrewEOC]

I also talked with monks and archimandrites about it before I converted. One archimandrite, a very firm creationist, recommended I read Genesis, Creation, and Early Man. After I read it and told him I still thought evolutionary theory was valid, he said he was perfectly fine with me converting while believing what I did and still do. As you've experienced, it's a non-issue for clergy on both sides of the debate.

 

[AndrewEOC]

I said I would be posting less and yet it seems I've been posting more... oh dear. It seems Internet forum addiction, rather than believing evolutionary theory, is my real problem.

 

[Knee V]

It seems Internet forum addiction ... is my real problem.

Join the club!

 

[rusmeister]

I agree rus, what I was pointing out was that Orthodox evolutionists are not treated like Arius on the recieving end of St Nicholas' fist. I think I even started my comments here by that there are evolutionists I know that are more devout than I am. it's just that some Fathers are very clear where they see things, which is one of the reasons I don't agree with evolution.

No argument. Regarding punches to the nose, I thought I was specific to the suggestion that Adam may not have existed.

 

[rusmeister]

Nobody said or is trying to argue that Adam definitively did not exist. The most I posted was Bouteneff's argument that the question of Adam's historical existence may not matter as much as you seem to think it does.

Your first sentence would be clearer with the removal of the word "definitively".

I can think of one group of people to whom it matters very much - Orthodox Christians whose patron saint is Adam.

The universal witness of the Church is that Adam was real. The whole line of thinking that casts doubt on this point seeks to accommodate worldly wisdom to the Church by contradicting the Church. We have ICONS of Adam. How in the heck can ANY Orthodox Christian suggest that he is "allegorical"? You and I are more allegorical than Adam.

 

[AndrewEOC]

Your first sentence would be clearer with the removal of the word "definitively".

I can think of one group of people to whom it matters very much - Orthodox Christians whose patron saint is Adam.

The universal witness of the Church is that Adam was real. The whole line of thinking that casts doubt on this point seeks to accommodate worldly wisdom to the Church by contradicting the Church. We have ICONS of Adam. How in the heck can ANY Orthodox Christian suggest that he is "allegorical"? You and I are more allegorical than Adam.

I added "definitively" only because at this time I have no interest in arguing the point one way or another, beyond what I already posted about Bouteneff. I do not think anything I've posted constitutes heresy. If you think Bouteneff is a heretic for writing what he did that is something you will have to take up with him. Here is his webpage and email: http://www.svots.edu/team/dr-peter-c-bouteneff ...But I advise you read what he wrote first, because nowhere does he say "Adam was not a real, historical person" or "Adam must only be understood allegorically."

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hope this doesn't sound like the ravings of a dullard or simpleton, but this thought just came to my heart as I was reading through the thread:

Aren't we called to put our faith in the Holy Orthodox Church and let it CHANGE US, rather than come to Orthodoxy hoping it will accept our preconceived notions of things like evolution?

We look at the Holy Orthodox Church and what do we see? The truths of the Fathers, the Holy Councils, the rich deposit of faith, the Sacraments in all their glory, right teaching, right polity, sanctity, piety, and spiritual edification. In short: we find the complete Truth.

Shouldn't we start with this premise: I'VE FOUND THE TRUE CHURCH! And then after that let it guide us and keep an open mind? Shouldn't we steadily let it mold us, enter our members and veins and heart and let it take root? After a while, we might realize we were wrong about some political issues, scientific issues, societal views, and other values? I'm not necessarily saying our view of evolution would change, but IT MIGHT! And shouldn't we be open to changes possibly coming from the outpouring of the spirit and the blessings of the Holy Trinity in our intellect coming to life?

Questions like: "Can I become Orthodox if I'm an evolutionist?" and "Can I become an Orthodox Christian if I'm a Democrat?" and "I'm in favor of Marxism, can I still join?" are really a waste of time.

If one accepts Holy Orthodoxy as Truth: GET CHRISMATED AND join us! Then go from there. Don't look to see which church fits our repertoire