Theistic Evolution ~ is it compatible with orthodox teaching & doctrine? .

jckstraw72 said:

for Orthodoxy the fall of man has much broader effects than it does in western traditions - it is in fact the fall of the entire cosmos. everything we see around us today is the result of this cosmic fall from Paradise, not of an endless chain of progression.

Click to expand...

This is the same in the West as far as I know.

Protoevangel said:

I don't recall Scripture or any Father mentioning Cain "wandering in the mountians" or of him "finding" his wife there. Perhaps I have missed something?


Isn't that's kind of what we've been discussing? You seem to be assuming your conclusion here. I would suggest that absolutely they would have known they were siblings, however and whenever they met.

Click to expand...

This was a response to a particular post, which suggested that Cain didn't recognize his sister when they met, based on the writings of one of the Fathers. I don't remember which one, but I'm too tired now to look. I can tomorrow though.

it was this:

Elder Paisios, [FONT=&quot]With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man[/FONT][FONT=&quot], pg. 295[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]
"Someone else asked me, 'Adam had two sons, Abel and Cain; how did Cain's wife get there?' But if one should read a little further in the Old Testament it says clearly that after Seth, Adam had other sons and daughters. Cain had left his home and wandered in the mountains after his brother's murder and did not know that the wife he took was actually his sister. God provided that men should descend from one tribe to prevent malice and crime. This way they would reason, 'We all come from the same father and mother, Adam and Eve;' and perhaps this thought would put the break on human malice. But that's not what happened. Our world is full of malice!"[/FONT]

This is the same in the West as far as I know.

Click to expand...

if you accept macroevolution as being true from the beginning, then it is not. because death to some degree has always been around. death for us is a side effect of the Fall. I have yet to read any Father or holy elder say anything otherwise.

MKJ said:

This was a response to a particular post, which suggested that Cain didn't recognize his sister when they met, based on the writings of one of the Fathers. I don't remember which one, but I'm too tired now to look. I can tomorrow though.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I believe you.

jckstraw72 said:

it was this:

Elder Paisios, [FONT=&quot]With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man[/FONT][FONT=&quot], pg. 295[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]
"Someone else asked me, 'Adam had two sons, Abel and Cain; how did Cain's wife get there?' But if one should read a little further in the Old Testament it says clearly that after Seth, Adam had other sons and daughters. Cain had left his home and wandered in the mountains after his brother's murder and did not know that the wife he took was actually his sister. God provided that men should descend from one tribe to prevent malice and crime. This way they would reason, 'We all come from the same father and mother, Adam and Eve;' and perhaps this thought would put the break on human malice. But that's not what happened. Our world is full of malice!"[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Interesting... I truly can't imagine how that scenario could have played out (not that the truth is dependent on my imagination ). I'll have to read that book.

Do you know if any other Fathers have spoken on Cain and his wife?

St. Ephraim the Syrian, [FONT=&quot]Commentary on Genesis, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]4[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]10
For [Moses] said, The Lord put a sign on Cain lest anyone who finds him should kill him. Those who would find him were the sons of Seth who were uncompelled to seek revenge for the blood of Abel, their uncle. They cut themselves off from Cain and did not intermarry with him because of his reproach and because of their fear of him, but they did not dare to kill him because of his sign.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 . . . Cain, therefore, separated himself from his parents and his kin because he saw that they would not intermarry with him.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]St. John Chrysostom, [/FONT]Commentary on Genesis, Homily 20:3
Don’t be surprised at this, dearly beloved: [Scripture] has so far given no list of women anywhere in a precise manner; instead, Sacred Scripture while avoiding superfluous detail mentions the males in turn, though not even all of them, telling us about them in rather summary fashion when it says that so-and-so had sons and daughters and then he died. So it is likely in this case too that Eve gave birth to a daughter after Cain and Abel, and Cain took her for a wife. You see, since it was in the beginning and the human race had to increase from then on, it was permissible to marry their own sisters.


St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, Interpretation of Canon 87 of St. Basil
But if anyone objects, or counterargues, that God made it a law to increase and multiply, and laid it down in express terms to the protoplasts, and that Adam’s children married one another in spite of the fact that they were brothers and sisters of the same parents, I deride and laugh to scorn the man who says these things and is unable to discern that in those days it was necessary to do this, because there were no other human beings of any other race, whereas nowadays there are many different races, so that this argument does not hold water.


and of course all the Fathers teach that Adam and Eve were literally the only 2 people until they had children, which necessitates their children procreated through incest

Need this be held de fide as it were? Is one heterodox if one doesn't believe this?

JohntheTheologian said:

Need this be held de fide as it were? Is one heterodox if one doesn't believe this?

Click to expand...

A literal reading of Genesis is not a matter of faith, it is a theological idea. You are not heterodox if you disagree with those who read Genesis as it is written word for word.

it depends on how you define that question -- is there an Ecumenical declaration against evolution? no. does the Church have a very clear tradition about Genesis in its Scriptures, Patristics, hymnography, iconography, and canons? yes. i dont know how we can get around the harmonious teaching that has come to us down the centuries through every avenue of the Church's teachings.

and certain aspects are incumbent upon us to believe. The Wisdom of Solomon tells us flat out that God did not create anything to die, and St. Paul tells us that this fallen world is due to the sin of man, not due to the way God created it. Furthermore, the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils declare anathema to anyone who believes that Adam and Eve were created physically mortal, rather than that they died because of sin.

jckstraw72 said:

it depends on how you define that question -- is there an Ecumenical declaration against evolution? no. does the Church have a very clear tradition about Genesis in its Scriptures, Patristics, hymnography, iconography, and canons? yes. i dont know how we can get around the harmonious teaching that has come to us down the centuries through every avenue of the Church's teachings.

and certain aspects are incumbent upon us to believe. The Wisdom of Solomon tells us flat out that God did not create anything to die, and St. Paul tells us that this fallen world is due to the sin of man, not due to the way God created it. Furthermore, the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils declare anathema to anyone who believes that Adam and Eve were created physically mortal, rather than that they died because of sin.

Click to expand...

The Psalms tell us God did create animals to die.

where?

Ps.104
[1] Bless the LORD, O my soul!
O LORD my God, thou art very great!
Thou art clothed with honor and majesty,
[2] who coverest thyself with light as with a garment,
who hast stretched out the heavens like a tent,
[3] who hast laid the beams of thy chambers on the waters,
who makest the clouds thy chariot,
who ridest on the wings of the wind,
[4] who makest the winds thy messengers,
fire and flame thy ministers.
[5] Thou didst set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be shaken.
[6] Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
[7] At thy rebuke they fled;
at the sound of thy thunder they took to flight.
[8] The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place which thou didst appoint for them.
[9] Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
[10] Thou makest springs gush forth in the valleys;
they flow between the hills,
[11] they give drink to every beast of the field;
the wild asses quench their thirst.
[12] By them the birds of the air have their habitation;
they sing among the branches.
[13] From thy lofty abode thou waterest the mountains;
the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy work.
[14] Thou dost cause the grass to grow for the cattle,
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth,
[15] and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine,
and bread to strengthen man's heart.
[16] The trees of the LORD are watered abundantly,
the cedars of Lebanon which he planted.
[17] In them the birds build their nests;
the stork has her home in the fir trees.
[18] The high mountains are for the wild goats;
the rocks are a refuge for the badgers.
[19] Thou hast made the moon to mark the seasons;
the sun knows its time for setting.
[20] Thou makest darkness, and it is night,
when all the beasts of the forest creep forth.
[21] The young lions roar for their prey,
seeking their food from God.
[22] When the sun rises, they get them away
and lie down in their dens.
[23] Man goes forth to his work
and to his labor until the evening.
[24] O LORD, how manifold are thy works!
In wisdom hast thou made them all;
the earth is full of thy creatures.
[25] Yonder is the sea, great and wide,
which teems with things innumerable,
living things both small and great.
[26] There go the ships,
and Leviathan which thou didst form to sport in it.
[27] These all look to thee,
to give them their food in due season.
[28] When thou givest to them, they gather it up;
when thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good things.
[29] When thou hidest thy face, they are dismayed;
when thou takest away their breath, they die
and return to their dust.[30] When thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created;
and thou renewest the face of the ground.
[31] May the glory of the LORD endure for ever,
may the LORD rejoice in his works,
[32] who looks on the earth and it trembles,
who touches the mountains and they smoke!
[33] I will sing to the LORD as long as I live;
I will sing praise to my God while I have being.
[34] May my meditation be pleasing to him,
for I rejoice in the LORD.
[35] Let sinners be consumed from the earth,
and let the wicked be no more!
Bless the LORD, O my soul!
Praise the LORD!

We only read this every night at vespers!

it doesnt say God created them mortal. i acknowledge that God continues to provide for His creation, even in its fallenness.

this, on the other hand, directly addresses the question at hand:
The Wisdom of Solomon 1:13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. 14 For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth:

jckstraw72 said:

it doesnt say God created them mortal. i acknowledge that God continues to provide for His creation, even in its fallenness.

this, on the other hand, directly addresses the question at hand:
The Wisdom of Solomon 1:13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. 14 For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth:

Click to expand...

I still differentiate physical from spiritual death. The material universe incorporates change. It was meant to. That's what makes it created rather than uncreated. If you propose that the material universe, pre fall, was unchanging, then you must propose that it was uncreated (as the act of being created is a change) and without time (as time implies movement / change) as God is. This would be heresy.

So we must say that creation incorporated change from the beginning. Change implies death of SOME kind or another. Take the simplest example of cell death on my skin (which occurs throughout the day). Here, something living dies as part of the changing nature of the universe. Or take the idea of the movement of the stars - as they move and grow, they grow towards an end. And that's just it: change involves (inevitably) the end of one thing in favor of a new thing. That ending is, on a physical level, death.

Animals are no different. Carnivores existed pre-fall - otherwise we'd have to propose that a significant number of animals are POST-fall creations, and that's just strange (mental gymnastics and all that). In addition, we know that humans and animals were commanded to eat - and that involves death on some level.

I do not think it that strange to propose that animal and plant PHYSICAL death occured before the fall, but that through the priesthood of humanity this natural element of change in the universe was CONNECTED to God and glorified Him. It ceased to be that, and therefore became spiritual death (death apart from God) once humanity fell. In this way, our sin condemned both ourselves and creation. We in an eternal sense, the rest of creation as, without us to bridge the divide, it was cut off from God and unable to glorify Him as it was intended to. It still proclaims His glory, but it has no voice to do the proclaiming. It still offers itself to God, but has no one to do the offering. Its purpose is cut off, and in this, when animals die, now it is a tragedy (as their death serves no purpose and has no meaning). Now their death is an evil.

CHANGE is not evil, therefore "death" (the physical transformation of matter from one sort to another) in the physical sense is no evil. Rather, spiritual death is evil - and it is entirely a result of the fall.

When I read those words you quote, that is the meaning I've understood them as having, as this harmonizes those words, the psalmist, and the account of Genesis, and the Anthropology of the Church Fathers (which sees creation as connected to God through human priesthood).

In Christ,
Macarius

Change implies death of SOME kind or another.

Click to expand...

no it doesn't. at some point St Michael cast out the devil, so at some point St Michael changed, and he is still alive. deathlessness and perfect simplicity are not the same thing.

In addition, we know that humans and animals were commanded to eat - and that involves death on some level.

Click to expand...

only if the natural biological functions of both the thing being eaten and the eater are the same as today. if not, death is not necessarily involved, especially if all of creation was much more spiritual.

CHANGE is not evil, therefore "death" (the physical transformation of matter from one sort to another) in the physical sense is no evil. Rather, spiritual death is evil - and it is entirely a result of the fall.

Click to expand...

then why is there a physical Resurrection? why does all of creation groan and labor with birth pangs for the Second Coming? if physical death is nothing out of the ordinary, then why is all of Creation delivered from it?

ArmyMatt said:

no it doesn't. at some point St Michael cast out the devil, so at some point St Michael changed, and he is still alive. deathlessness and perfect simplicity are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

It does though. If water changes to steam, the water (as water) is no longer there, it's gone, it's "dead" a sense.

only if the natural biological functions of both the thing being eaten and the eater are the same as today. if not, death is not necessarily involved, especially if all of creation was much more spiritual.

Click to expand...

God told Adam he could eat any fruit in the garden. How could any biological fruit be eaten without "dying" as we understand dying?

then why is there a physical Resurrection? why does all of creation groan and labor with birth pangs for the Second Coming? if physical death is nothing out of the ordinary, then why is all of Creation delivered from it?

Click to expand...

Even when I read Genesis as a child, I believed that the admonishment that if you eat the forbidden fruit "thou shalt surely die" must have been meant in a spiritual sense. I think focusing exclusively on the physicality of biological life is a mistake.

the creation was intended to be dynamic - the change was supposed to be to move ever upwards towards God, death was not the intended change. nothing in the Tradition supports that idea. several Fathers explicitly say that animals were created immortal. do we really understand Scripture better than them?

It does though. If water changes to steam, the water (as water) is no longer there, it's gone, it's "dead" a sense.

Click to expand...

you miss my point, he said that change means death:

Change implies death of SOME kind or another

Click to expand...

I said no it doesn't. the angels change where they are because they are not omnipresent. St Michael changed when he yelled at the devil, "Who is like unto our God, when he cast him from heaven. at one point St Michael is talking, and at another point he is not. that's a change. at some point he fought over the body of Moses with the Devil. so he changed from not fighting with the devil to fighting with him, to prolly not fighting with him. the point is that just because something changes, does not mean it dies (ie St Michael, who is still alive).

God told Adam he could eat any fruit in the garden. How could any biological fruit be eaten without "dying" as we understand dying?

Click to expand...

because Adam's body was glorified, the plants were glorified so they all derived their life from God in an unfallen state. so his digestive system did NOT work the same back then as ours do now.

Even when I read Genesis as a child, I believed that the admonishment that if you eat the forbidden fruit "thou shalt surely die" must have been meant in a spiritual sense. I think focusing exclusively on the physicality of biological life is a mistake.

Click to expand...

no one is focusing on the physicality of biological life. it goes hand in hand with our spiritual life. and that does not answer the question. how is all of creation groaning for the second coming, if death and corruption are natural to the physical creation? where does this yearning for redemption come from, if nature has always been this way (ie dying)?

If water changes to steam, the water (as water) is no longer there, it's gone, it's "dead" a sense.

Click to expand...

and no, it's not gone or dead in any sense. it's still there. it's just a gas.

ArmyMatt said:

no it doesn't. at some point St Michael cast out the devil, so at some point St Michael changed, and he is still alive. deathlessness and perfect simplicity are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

St. Michael is pure spirit - not at all physical. He isn't governed by the restrictions of the physical world.

We are. To suggest otherwise is pseudo-docetism.

Additionally, even in a spiritual sense, the Devil therein underwent death. Michael, in changing (which implies time, which is a strange concept in the spiritual world anyway since it properly belongs to our material world), died. The Michael that existed BEFORE sending the Devil out was a different Michael from the one that existed AFTER.

Death (in the animal, plant, or conceptual sense) is merely a change of states from "being" one way to "being" another way. For animals, this mode of being is purely physical. Their literal material self is absorbed by other animals or lifeforms (like bacteria) and used. For a spirit, undergoing change implies a new state of being (a new experience, for example). However, in both cases, no change of ontology has occured. No TRUE death has taken place.

For the devil, for us when we fall, there is real death. We ontologically disunite from God and become other than what we were.

We need to define death. I'm defining death as "the ending of something." If NOTHING ended pre fall, then how did the days end? How were plants eaten? How was there evening and morning?

What do YOU mean by death? Is it the ending of a life? What is life? Unity to God. Does an animal, without an immortal or rational soul, separate from God by dying? Of course not. In so much as that animal was part of God's creation and the entirety of its material self remains part of that creation, the creation itself remains united to God.

How can a being without an immortal soul which is part of a changing universe BE immortal? That would imply either that they have an immortal soul or that the universe pre-fall was UNCHANGING (co-eternal with God, a heresy).

Were animals created to have an eternal soul (soul here being defined in the Judaic sense of center of being, not in the Platonic sense of being a separate "self" entrapped in a physical body)?

only if the natural biological functions of both the thing being eaten and the eater are the same as today. if not, death is not necessarily involved, especially if all of creation was much more spiritual.

Click to expand...

Denial of the physical is pseudo-docetism. The physical was created, and was created GOOD. Generally, when we differentiate the spiritual man from the animal man we are talking about being "subject" to the animal passions or "subject" to Christ.

Again - was there change pre-fall? Then something ended. Were those things physical? Yes. That implies physical change. Physical change = death of some kind. Death, in the biological sense, existed prefall.

Death, in the ultimate sense, did not.

then why is there a physical Resurrection?

Click to expand...

Because the soul / spirit is not separate or distinct from the body. Rather, we are as complete a psycho-somatic union as Christ is completely human and Divine. Any resurrection which does not raise the physical is no resurrection at all.

So far as I'm aware, though, there is no doctrine for animals rising from the dead. If their (merely physical) death is so against God's will then they would (each and every one) be raised. That would imply an immortal soul for animals. As they do not have one, we know they will not be raised. The idea of a physical resurrection is not problematic for what I'm saying here.

Also, we are not animals. We were never meant to undergo biological death, but were meant to be immortal. We may change in the spiritual sense (like Michael) growing ever closer into God, but our body was intended to be as immortal as Christ's transfigured body.

Why does all of creation groan and labor with birth pangs for the Second Coming?

Click to expand...

As I said above: our spiritual death / separation from God necessarily RENDS creation from its purpose of glorifying God as there is no longer anyone to proclaim that glory (creation declares it, but it has no voice), and though creation is prepared as an offering to God, there is no one to do the offering.

Only Christ fulfilled our priestly role within creation, so creation groans for His second coming and the fulfillment of its purpose. Now, instead of the cycle of life glorifying God's unchanging nature, it is purposeless. An animal's existence is meaningless. Its death merely a death; its matter merely food for another's matter. There is no glory, no point.

But in Christ that point is resurrected. The animal, by being food to another, becomes a type of Christ. Christ's offering of all of creation in His own body transforms creation again into an offering to God. We were meant to be the bridge; Christ, as the truest human, fulfilled that role as "bridge" between God and man.

If death - real death - is separation from God, then our fall KILLED creation (separated it from its purpose) and Christ's recapitulation of creation UNDID that disobedience and RESURRECTS creation from that spiritual death.

If physical death is nothing out of the ordinary, then why is all of Creation delivered from it?

Click to expand...

Perhaps the new body will not need to eat. If it does, then it will not be death-as-mere-change-of-state that will end, but death-as-separation-from-God that will (in a sense) die out. Instead, our UNDERSTANDING of animal death will be transformed by our renewed unity with God; but I'm open to plants or animals continuing to consume biological and non-biological matter in a state of constant change that, in popular definition, would correspond to "biological" death.

In Christ,
Macarius

and no, it's not gone or dead in any sense. it's still there. it's just a gas.

Click to expand...

And an animal that is consumed by another, it doesn't go anywhere. Its matter (that is, the entirety of itself) is merely consumed by other animals or lifeforms and goes on living.