What is the Church's position on Creation/Evolution

[ArmyMatt]

But what does this death entail? The death of animals, plants, germs, bacteriae, humans physically, or just humans physically? Were all the animals originally vegetarian? Does it refer to Spiritual Death and separation from God alone?

What does death entail in terms of how reality was transformed? Was the earth composed of a fused terrestrial and celestial matter? Did God's Grace transfigure all of reality in a world that was just composed of terrestial matter before the fall? What exactly happened to the whole world when Eve took that bite of the fruit, as did Adam?

What exactly do we even make of Eden? Was it a physical, geographical location of the Earth? Did it even refer to the Earth itself, or WAS it the Earth? And how does Death close off Eden from us if it isn't part of the Earth, and how did it transform reality?


Were the Church Fathers consistent on all of these details?

I'm not saying your view is incorrect or correct, Father - I'm not even Orthodox, nor am I receiving the Holy Sacraments. But I find - obviously - that it can be a mess to figure out the precise, Patristic interpretation of Genesis, because when you have such massive differences between even how the Eastern Fathers like Saint Basil and Saint John Chrysostom viewed it, along with how Saint Augustine viewed it, and what contemporary Sciences (not just some of the contemporary Darwinist biology, but even Archaeology) tells us about the world.

well, Wisdom of Solomon says God created all things that they might exist, and the NT says all of creation is groaning for redemption.

there was no corruption or separation before the Fall, and man had all of creation subject to him. St Maximos the confessor points out in the Philokalia that the incarnation healed all of the side effects of the Fall.

and St Silouan of Mt Athos said the saints don't contradict each other. if they seem to contradict, it's because we are not illumined as they are yet.

 

[gzt]

well, Wisdom of Solomon says God created all things that they might exist, and the NT says all of creation is groaning for redemption.

there was no corruption or separation before the Fall, and man had all of creation subject to him. St Maximos the confessor points out in the Philokalia that the incarnation healed all of the side effects of the Fall.

and St Silouan of Mt Athos said the saints don't contradict each other. if they seem to contradict, it's because we are not illumined as they are yet.

Well, yes, according to one school of interpretation.

But, no, saints do contradict each other quite a bit.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, yes, according to one school of interpretation.

But, no, saints do contradict each other quite a bit.

if you have another school of interpretation from the saints, I'd love to read it.

seeing as how St Silouan IS a saint, I think he knows what he is talking about.

 

[TheLostCoin]

if you have another school of interpretation from the saints, I'd love to read it.

seeing as how St Silouan IS a saint, I think he knows what he is talking about.

I think there is truth to what Saint Silouan is saying - the problem is we aren't monks. We are armchair "theologians" (I think theologians would even be blasphemous to say in terms of what we are) who live in a world that isn't Orthodox - sometimes even very openly mirroring the society in which the Satan's Throne in Pergamum was erected. And considering that these questions are far more of a struggle to us, it seems to be the case that the Fathers haven't really helped us in understanding the question with great precision considering they express the Truth in a multitude of different ways.

I will say that it's definitely not true - at least in writing - to say that the Church Fathers never make mistakes. Saint Augustine and Saint Ambrose immediately come to mind as Church Fathers who made mistakes.

If Saint Augustine never made mistakes, he would have never had to write a Treatise on his retractions.

You could argue that Saint Augustine isn't a Church Father, but then you have the Fathers of the 5th Ecumenical Council who will all unanimously judge you for saying such a thing.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think there is truth to what Saint Silouan is saying - the problem is we aren't monks. We are armchair "theologians" (I think theologians would even be blasphemous to say in terms of what we are) who live in a world that isn't Orthodox - sometimes even very openly mirroring the society in which the Synagogue of Satan in Perm was erected. And considering that these questions are far more of a struggle to us, it seems to be the case that the Fathers haven't really helped us in understanding the question with great precision considering they express the Truth in a multitude of different ways.

I will say that it's definitely not true - at least in writing - to say that the Church Fathers never make mistakes. Saint Augustine and Saint Ambrose immediately come to mind.

I don't mean they never make mistakes or are beyond correction, but what corrects them is the Church, which possesses the fullness of the Spirit Who leads to all truth. it isn't theories that spring up outside of the Church, that correct Church theology.

that's why usually in these threads I try to say that the Fathers since Darwin have rejected evolution.

 

[gzt]

There are a number of theologians in the 20th century who weren't young earth creationists.

 

[1stcenturylady]

so we should be creationist? What sort of creationist; young earth, gap, etc.

If you go strictly according to scripture, then young earth.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There are a number of theologians in the 20th century who weren't young earth creationists.

so what? there were a number of 4th century theologians who were Origenists, like a large chunk of the bishops at Nicaea. simply pointing out important people in the Church think something doesn't add much to your argument, especially looking at Church history.

 

[gzt]

Well, time will tell. Until then, my views are perfectly legit.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am sure every canonical Origenist said the same thing.

 

[gzt]

I'd say the same to you.

 

[gzt]

Would you say that to my bishop? Or dare correct him?

 

[ArmyMatt]

of course you could, but no saint, hymn, or prayer backs up your position.

 

[gzt]

We're going in circles. This is a recent issue, and no hymn or prayer disagrees with me.

 

[gzt]

So I'll again point to the orthowiki and bid this over. Anybody who wants can find a number of helpful articles on the subject there on either side. Evolution - OrthodoxWiki Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Would you say that to my bishop? Or dare correct him?

I was waiting for this to rear its head. and again, for the umpteenth time when your argument is going nowhere and you bring this up, no. it is not my place to correct a bishop. if said bishop asks me I will answer as I have, but I will not correct a bishop.

 

[gzt]

I'm only bringing it up because we seemed to once agree that I should ask my bishop.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We're going in circles. This is a recent issue, and no hymn or prayer disagrees with me.

well, while true it is a recent issue, it is incorrect to say that no hymn or prayer disagrees with you.

 

[gzt]

But perhaps it behooves you to admit that, gasp, perhaps my view is a legitimate Orthodox opinion. It seems many, including those you should listen to, hold it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm only bringing it up because we seemed to once agree that I should ask my bishop.

yeah, and when you have brought this up before, my answer has not changed.