The historicity of Adam

[Knee V]

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

I don't think you're nearly as simple as you might think

 

[AndrewEOC]

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

Well, what does matter, as rusmeister suggested, is your ability to recite the Creed honestly. Reciting the Creed honestly is impossible if you are a dialectical materialist or an evolutionist who doesn't acknowledge God's role as "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." So yes, in some cases there are prior conceptions that need to be addressed before you join the Church.

In my case, my view on evolution hasn't really been transformed. I don't rule out the possibility I'm wrong. I don't rule out the possibility I'm wrong on everything I think and believe and understand about the world, except the Creed. But I'm more concerned about my deeds and sins than about being possibly incorrect on the processes through which God created life. I don't bring up my views on evolution at Confession because it's not an area where I (or my priest, especially considering he accepts evolution himself) feel I need to repent and try to change. Nor would it be, I think, for anyone, except if intellectual pride becomes a problem. But we shouldn't assume that's true for all, and it could also become a problem for creationists.

If I am wrong on evolution- Lord have mercy! But there are bigger things for which I will likely be judged that I need to address.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I completely concur with all you say here, Andrew. I am merely saying that we should put these secondary issues like evolution to the side and open our hearts to being transformed...that means the POSSIBLILTY of our views on such things changing. We don't look to fit us into orthodoxy, but the inverse. That's all I meant. I've had to re-examine a lot of my little issues as an Orthodox Christian, and it hasn't always been easy!

Well, what does matter, as rusmeister suggested, is your ability to recite the Creed honestly. Reciting the Creed honestly is impossible if you are a dialectical materialist or an evolutionist who doesn't acknowledge God's role as "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." So yes, in some cases there are prior conceptions that need to be addressed before you join the Church.

In my case, my view on evolution hasn't really been transformed. I don't rule out the possibility I'm wrong. I don't rule out the possibility I'm wrong on everything I think and believe and understand about the world, except the Creed. But I'm more concerned about my deeds and sins than about being possibly incorrect on the processes through which God created life. I don't bring up my views on evolution at Confession because it's not an area where I (or my priest, especially considering he accepts evolution himself) feel I need to repent and try to change. Nor would it be, I think, for anyone, except if intellectual pride becomes a problem. But we shouldn't assume that's true for all.

If I am wrong on evolution- Lord have mercy! But there are bigger things for which I will likely be judged that I need to address.

 

[AndrewEOC]

I completely concur with all you say here, Andrew. I am merely saying that we should put these secondary issues like evolution to the side and open our hearts to being transformed...that means the POSSIBLILTY of our views on such things changing. We don't look to fit us into orthodoxy, but the inverse. That's all I meant. I've had to re-examine a lot of my little issues as an Orthodox Christian, and it hasn't always been easy!

OK, gotcha. Becoming a Christian did change my views on quite a lot of things. I did have to reanalyze my approach to politics and history, along with the natural sciences and evolution. I guess having had a great biology teacher in high school who was a very devout Catholic, along with religious friends in college who also studied evolution, helped. But I wanted to get this issue straightened out before becoming Orthodox... For reasons already mentioned, I felt that doing anything less would have been disingenuous. Now that it's straightened out I don't dismiss the possibility I'm still wrong... But, it did allow me to move on to other issues in my spiritual life that really needed/need improvement.

So I'm not disagreeing with you, just sharing my own experience.

 

[rusmeister]

Well, what does matter, as rusmeister suggested, is your ability to recite the Creed honestly. Reciting the Creed honestly is impossible if you are a dialectical materialist or an evolutionist who doesn't acknowledge God's role as "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." So yes, in some cases there are prior conceptions that need to be addressed before you join the Church.

In my case, my view on evolution hasn't really been transformed. I don't rule out the possibility I'm wrong. I don't rule out the possibility I'm wrong on everything I think and believe and understand about the world, except the Creed. But I'm more concerned about my deeds and sins than about being possibly incorrect on the processes through which God created life. I don't bring up my views on evolution at Confession because it's not an area where I (or my priest, especially considering he accepts evolution himself) feel I need to repent and try to change. Nor would it be, I think, for anyone, except if intellectual pride becomes a problem. But we shouldn't assume that's true for all, and it could also become a problem for creationists.

If I am wrong on evolution- Lord have mercy! But there are bigger things for which I will likely be judged that I need to address.

Sounds like a good attitude to me!

 

[rusmeister]

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: Dr. Peter C. Bouteneff | St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary ...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."

Got it.
I'm only addressing ideas suggested here. I have not taken up Bouteneff so don't claim to say "He said..."; I only say "IF he says..."
Since you say he doesn't, I guess that's the end of the matter.

FTR, I'M open to ideas I have (politics come to mind) where I can imagine changing my mind. As I grow older, I see more and more confirmation of what I have come to, making change seem less likely, but don't exclude the possibility.

But being as I address the Holy Forefather Adam in prayer, I can't accept other than an admission that he is indeed a real person, and now more Real than you or me. Doubt on that particular point must be excluded for the Orthodox Christian, as admitting it is tantamount to saying that we waste our time praying to our patron saints. The Church teaches us that the saints are real persons, and that Christ is a descendent of Adam in the same sense and breath as he is a descendent of David. (and I do not claim that Bouteneff is suggesting that it is otherwise. I would leave it to you to tell me whether he is.)

 

[jckstraw72]

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

that is precisely the attitude we all need to strive to form within ourselves, by the grace of God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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

gotcha, the evolutionists that I know all affirm Adam, and I think there is a canon that says that if you dispute Adam's salvation, you are anathema.

 

[jckstraw72]

gotcha, the evolutionists that I know all affirm Adam, and I think there is a canon that says that if you dispute Adam's salvation, you are anathema.

well the canon says that if you believe Adam was naturally mortal - that is, that he would have died even if he had not sinned, then you're anathema (a canon of Carthage that was ratified by Trullo and the 7th Council). but St. Irenaeus had written that Tatian had the heretical idea that Adam was not saved.

 

[MKJ]

MK, honestly, my interest in arguing with you is not high - you are not Orthodox. Not accepting the authority of the Orthodox Church undercuts a lot of potential common ground.

But I'll say that I did not SAY he or anyone "said" theory is inerrant fact. I say they TREAT it as such.
And I DO think that almost nobody thinks about the philosophical underpinnings of the scientists, the assumptions they - and evidently you - want us to accept without question.

I do not challenge science on scientific grounds - my challenge is on philosophical grounds. What is the nature of man, his purpose in life, and how do we divine truth? Scientific rationalism is overwhelmingly the basis for evolutionary theory, and it is un-Orthodox. It leaps from observations about the world we see now to cosmic interpretations and conclusions based on bankrupt philosophy, and then (in "theistic evolution") tries to connect that to Christian theology.

Have you read GKC's essay on it? Do you not see its applicability in our time?

No, I do not want you to accept anything without question, nor have I said anything like that. And no, nothing anyone said suggests they act as if it is inerrant fact.

What I would like to see, if people want to talk about science or really epistemology in this case, on philosophical grounds, is that they really engage with the philosophy. The things you have posted by Chesterton are good, but are not actually doing that - they are talking about scientism, which is a very particular thing, and not the same as the philosophy behind science. It is a bit like using an article of the errors of Snake Handlers to criticize the Lutherans.

To post something about scientism and try and apply it inappropriately will of course result in people objecting. The assumption is that it has been done in error, so they want to point out that it is not really discussing the topic at hand.

Anyway - I can't help myself - it is rather ironic to have you say it is impossible to discuss this with someone who is not Orthodox, and then post something from Chesterton - who never belonged to your tradition but came out of mine, and whose views on this issue remained compatible with it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well the canon says that if you believe Adam was naturally mortal - that is, that he would have died even if he had not sinned, then you're anathema (a canon of Carthage that was ratified by Trullo and the 7th Council). but St. Irenaeus had written that Tatian had the heretical idea that Adam was not saved.

thanks, knew it was something like that

 

[rusmeister]

No, I do not want you to accept anything without question, nor have I said anything like that. And no, nothing anyone said suggests they act as if it is inerrant fact.

What I would like to see, if people want to talk about science or really epistemology in this case, on philosophical grounds, is that they really engage with the philosophy. The things you have posted by Chesterton are good, but are not actually doing that - they are talking about scientism, which is a very particular thing, and not the same as the philosophy behind science. It is a bit like using an article of the errors of Snake Handlers to criticize the Lutherans.

To post something about scientism and try and apply it inappropriately will of course result in people objecting. The assumption is that it has been done in error, so they want to point out that it is not really discussing the topic at hand.

Anyway - I can't help myself - it is rather ironic to have you say it is impossible to discuss this with someone who is not Orthodox, and then post something from Chesterton - who never belonged to your tradition but came out of mine, and whose views on this issue remained compatible with it.

Scientism IS the philosophy behind most modern science, MK. If it were not, I would agree with your point. As it is, I see a general worship of science in our time, to where people are willing to sell out on the theology worked out over centuries or millennia in their own tradition for fear of not accommodating the claims of these priests of our time in white vestments, lifting up beakers instead of chalices and carrying out the latest textbooks in the Lesser Entry.

To post about scientism and applying it CORRECTLY will result in people objecting.

On Chesterton, and you, it is not really so much that you are not Orthodox. It is that you are, as I see it, much more ready to lean towards scientism, and Chesterton who is far more Orthodox in his thinking and approach. Anyway, no offense, but I'd much rather be on his side than yours, everywhere except where I am SURE that he was in error. What I meant was that despite being somewhat Anglo-Catholic (insofar as I have observed), you seem to be unwilling to, as GKC put it, accept an Authority that is not only right where you are right, but right where you are wrong. Maybe I'm wrong there; that's just what it looks like. (I have no problem being wrong about you; we know little of and often mistake each other.)

I think you have a fine and sharp mind. But I think you pit it against the wrong things sometimes. And challenging, and above all dismissing GKC is something that ought to be done with extreme caution. He wasn't always right, but his coefficient of error, generally speaking, I have found to be far smaller than most other mortals.

(And obviously, I forgive you for having the presumption to think yourself right, as I hope you will forgive me for the same, and for which GKC asked forgiveness as well.) .

The knowledge of this world is passing, even when it is not in error.

 

[AndrewEOC]

I once dreamt that Chesterton and I had a conversation in my living room. Can't remember what we talked about in the dream... Should've written it down.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I wonder if it would be possible to have a discussion about Orthodox opinions without Chesterton? LOL....

I am growing in my interest and fondness for GKC, but I just wonder what these discussions would be like if we were discussing them before the birth of Chesterton or if he had never been born.

Could we make Orthodox arguments and citations without him? Our discussions always get down to "well, that's not what GKC meant!" or "I would refer you to GKC," or "you're taking Chesterton out of context" and other such commentary?

I know Rus will likely want my head severed on a platter after this comment, but it just sometimes seems odd that all our conversations in an Orthodox forum talk more about Chesterton than the Catholics do! It seems these days that Father Seraphim Rose or GK Chesterton are pretty much our only modern go-to's....I'd just love to hear some insight from other theologians, saints, and holy men....Hit me with some Father Hopko, a touch of Schmemann, anybody!

I think the problem with the discussion Meghan (MKJ) and Rus are having is it is devolving into a battle over what Chesterton meant rather than a discussion about the historicity of Adam. I love both of these posters, so it's just an observation.

Remember that national "a day with a Mexican" thing we had in the U.S.? We just need a day without Chesterton in TAW! Then bring him back....

 

[AndrewEOC]

I wonder if it would be possible to have a discussion about Orthodox opinions without Chesterton? LOL....

I am growing in my interest and fondness for GKC, but I just wonder what these discussions would be like if we were discussing them before the birth of Chesterton or if he had never been born.

Could we make Orthodox arguments and citations without him? Our discussions always get down to "well, that's not what GKC meant!" or "I would refer you to GKC," or "you're taking Chesterton out of context" and other such commentary?

I know Rus will likely want my head severed on a platter after this comment, but it just sometimes seems odd that all our conversations in an Orthodox forum talk more about Chesterton than the Catholics do! It seems these days that Father Seraphim Rose or GK Chesterton are pretty much our only modern go-to's....I'd just love to hear some insight from other theologians, saints, and holy men....Hit me with some Father Hopko, a touch of Schmemann, anybody!

I think the problem with the discussion Meghan (MKJ) and Rus are having is it is devolving into a battle over what Chesterton meant rather than a discussion about the historicity of Adam. I love both of these posters, so it's just an observation.

Remember that national "a day with a Mexican" thing we had in the U.S.? We just need a day without Chesterton in TAW! Then bring him back....

I was the one to introduce a little source diversity... Had I not been here there probably would've been 26 pages of nothing but Seraphim Rose and Chesterton, with techniques for how to punch heretical evolutionists intermingled.

 

[MKJ]

Scientism IS the philosophy behind most modern science, MK. If it were not, I would agree with your point. As it is, I see a general worship of science in our time, to where people are willing to sell out on the theology worked out over centuries or millennia in their own tradition for fear of not accommodating the claims of these priests of our time in white vestments, lifting up beakers instead of chalices and carrying out the latest textbooks in the Lesser Entry.

To post about scientism and applying it CORRECTLY will result in people objecting.

On Chesterton, and you, it is not really so much that you are not Orthodox. It is that you are, as I see it, much more ready to lean towards scientism, and Chesterton who is far more Orthodox in his thinking and approach. Anyway, no offense, but I'd much rather be on his side than yours, everywhere except where I am SURE that he was in error. What I meant was that despite being somewhat Anglo-Catholic (insofar as I have observed), you seem to be unwilling to, as GKC put it, accept an Authority that is not only right where you are right, but right where you are wrong. Maybe I'm wrong there; that's just what it looks like. (I have no problem being wrong about you; we know little of and often mistake each other.)

I think you have a fine and sharp mind. But I think you pit it against the wrong things sometimes. And challenging, and above all dismissing GKC is something that ought to be done with extreme caution. He wasn't always right, but his coefficient of error, generally speaking, I have found to be far smaller than most other mortals.

(And obviously, I forgive you for having the presumption to think yourself right, as I hope you will forgive me for the same, and for which GKC asked forgiveness as well.) .

The knowledge of this world is passing, even when it is not in error.

Rus,

I don't have a problem with Chesterton on this. I don't think he misunderstood the difference between science and scientism. I am, without a doubt, not a follower of scientism - I tend far to much to the mystical and mythological for that. I think literature is a better guide to most things then science.

But you are just factualy wrong here - scientism is not the philosophy behind science. It really just isn't - it does not describe how science works, how it is related to epistemology, or how it understands things. It isn't what science teaches, it isn't how philosophy understands science.

Have you ever tried to read any other kinds of sources, good ones, on the philosophy of science? Scientism generally is described in them in rather poor terms, to say the least. Even scientists do not generally believe what scientism says, beyond a few idiots like Richard Dawkins. The Victorians often seem to have believed it as well, though I don't think universally.

Now, scientism is widely believed by the quivering masses who substitute it for religion, and by the media, who tend to like black and white answers and reductionist descriptions. They get it about as right as they usually get their theological reporting.

 

[MKJ]

I wonder if it would be possible to have a discussion about Orthodox opinions without Chesterton? LOL....

I am growing in my interest and fondness for GKC, but I just wonder what these discussions would be like if we were discussing them before the birth of Chesterton or if he had never been born.

Could we make Orthodox arguments and citations without him? Our discussions always get down to "well, that's not what GKC meant!" or "I would refer you to GKC," or "you're taking Chesterton out of context" and other such commentary?

I know Rus will likely want my head severed on a platter after this comment, but it just sometimes seems odd that all our conversations in an Orthodox forum talk more about Chesterton than the Catholics do! It seems these days that Father Seraphim Rose or GK Chesterton are pretty much our only modern go-to's....I'd just love to hear some insight from other theologians, saints, and holy men....Hit me with some Father Hopko, a touch of Schmemann, anybody!

I think the problem with the discussion Meghan (MKJ) and Rus are having is it is devolving into a battle over what Chesterton meant rather than a discussion about the historicity of Adam. I love both of these posters, so it's just an observation.

Remember that national "a day with a Mexican" thing we had in the U.S.? We just need a day without Chesterton in TAW! Then bring him back....

Ok, so what the heck is "a day with a Mexican?"

Anyway, as far as Adam: I think if we consider the idea that Adam is an archtype only, we very quickly see that is a problem. You can't have an archtype that is metaphysically creative without an actual thing it is the type of. It has to be real as well as a type, for the same reasons we would say Christ has to be real in order to actually create or repair the old archtype.

So properly speaking, I can't see how we could say anything other than he was both a type and a real individual.

I suspect when people want to say he was a type only, they are thinking of art. Typically in art when we see archtypes, they are abstractions that the author has drawn from concrete examples, moving from all kinds of imperfect examples around us to contemplate a sort of perfect and almost spiritualized version. And if the artist is any good, he manages to tap into a deeper reality when he does so (which is why Aristotle tells us that poetry can often be more true than history).

So, the artist may be trying to grasp at something which does have a metaphysical reality - and we see that, I think, in some non-Christian religions as well as in art. But his depiction of the type does not create the reality.

But with Adam, or Christ, we are starting from the other end - we are speaking of the reality that creates the types artists are trying to show us.

 

[jckstraw72]

Gurney - if you want some other modern Saints and elders and theologians speaking on this issue, then see here:

Saints, Holy Elders, and Theologians who have lived since Darwin | Old Believing's Blog

 

[jckstraw72]

for some samples of how the Fathers speak about Adam and Eve, see here:

Adam and Eve were literally the first people and were created uniquely from all other creatures and subsequent people | Old Believing's Blog

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Typo---"A Day Without a Mexican"

Ok, so what the heck is "a day with a Mexican?"

Anyway, as far as Adam: I think if we consider the idea that Adam is an archtype only, we very quickly see that is a problem. You can't have an archtype that is metaphysically creative without an actual thing it is the type of. It has to be real as well as a type, for the same reasons we would say Christ has to be real in order to actually create or repair the old archtype.

So properly speaking, I can't see how we could say anything other than he was both a type and a real individual.

I suspect when people want to say he was a type only, they are thinking of art. Typically in art when we see archtypes, they are abstractions that the author has drawn from concrete examples, moving from all kinds of imperfect examples around us to contemplate a sort of perfect and almost spiritualized version. And if the artist is any good, he manages to tap into a deeper reality when he does so (which is why Aristotle tells us that poetry can often be more true than history).

So, the artist may be trying to grasp at something which does have a metaphysical reality - and we see that, I think, in some non-Christian religions as well as in art. But his depiction of the type does not create the reality.

But with Adam, or Christ, we are starting from the other end - we are speaking of the reality that creates the types artists are trying to show us.