Religious Views On Evolution

Actually are they not suggesting that the world must continue in its present state for six thousand years? That does not necessarily mean an ending after the allotted time. Rather that 6000 years are needed to fulfill the works of God. What comes after may be a new direction for the planet, or some other immense change in our race as 'phase 2', as it were, begins.
 
I want to be clear o n this. Are you understanding them as saying that creation took six-thousand years?
 
The early church fathers looked to Hellenic philosophy to provide them with a metaphysical system.
I don't see it so cut and dried. Certainly they were schooled in the Hellenic systems, and they took Hellenic philosophical methodology, this is well known. As one contemporary Orthodox theologian has said, 'when the Fathers thought, they Platonised', but they used this to investigate Revelation, they did not interpret Scripture to bring it into line with Plato, nor did they make Revelation subordinate to Hellenic metaphysics – the disputes with those who did are clear. The Arian dispute, for example, was basically Arius (a form of Platonism) v Orthodoxy (Scripture).

The dispute with the gnostics was not really a Hellenic dispute, as the Stoics and the Platonists were as critical and dismissive of the gnostics as the Christians were, seeing the gnostic theogony was founded on very human psychologisms rather than incisive metaphysical clarity.

The Alexandrian school was founded in the Hellenic style, and while Justin and Clement and Origen and a multitude of others were schooled in the Platonic method, they saw its short-comings and were rooted in Scripture. 'Origenism' was condemned and scholars today agree that 'Origenism' was not Origen'a actual teaching, but rather a too-Platonic interpretation of his teaching.

The Doctrine of Salvation, in its various forms even today, traces itself back to the writings of Irenaeus, who was not a Hellenist at all, and who produced what might be considered the first catechism.

And of course there is St Maximus who, in a stroke of genius, recast the very fundamental elements of Platonic metaphysics to bring it into line with Christian doctrine.

In certain predominant schools, the world of time, change, and movement was seen as a big illusion and the source of all evil. Incorporated into the church, this meant God was described as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, wholly independent, etc. Creaturely, finite attributes could not be attributed to God.
I think the Jews arrived at this themselves.Nor did the Christians see change etc. as the source of evil.

In the latter, God is was to be outside the whole order of creation.
Quite. God is the Creator. To say otherwise is pantheism, or some populist forms of panentheism.

For God to be present meant God could be affected by things, whereas God is totally immutable, static.
I think one needs to be careful about getting bogged down in categories in that they tend to infer their physics characteristsics. They need to be read with a degree of plasticity.
 
A couple of points:

What the Fathers thought does not itself determine Church doctrine, and no Father is infallible – so arguing that this father thought this and another that is interesting from an historical perspective, but it does not therefore show what a denomination holds as doctrine or dogma.

Shunyadragon cites all his arguments from one pro-literal source. I could offer other citations that say otherwise. Origen for example clearly states that the six days are anagogical, and so do others, but it would seem from reading the commentaries by The Edinburgh Creation Group that they might perhaps be reading the Fathers a bit too literally and with a mind to finding what they're looking for ... in short, eisegesis.

From my readings, some Fathers did, some didn't. Some, like Augustine, are very difficult to fathom at times and I'm not sure citing a couple of lines does the author justice. Some, like St Basil, highlight the necessity of pastoral consideration in preaching, and seem to hold both views, so the views are broad and various, and the Edinburgh group is over-stating the case in favour of their own position.

In the Catholic faith, for example, Genesis 1-11 are regarded as mythical texts, although we tend to allow a lot more of myth than the modern mind, which tends to equate myth with fairy tale.
 
I want to be clear o n this. Are you understanding them as saying that creation took six-thousand years?

No, not necessarily, this is an option, but most considered it a literal six day Creation, and ages that total 6000 years until the end of the world. Different theologians in history have believed in a 6,000 year Creation scenario based on 6 days relying on the citation 'each day is a thousand years.'
 
A couple of points:

What the Fathers thought does not itself determine Church doctrine, and no Father is infallible – so arguing that this father thought this and another that is interesting from an historical perspective, but it does not therefore show what a denomination holds as doctrine or dogma.

I never stated that this is the case. The church fathers beliefs are simply what was predominantly believed at the time the New Testament was compiled edited, redacted and at times added to over the ~400+ years, and what was later included in 'Bibles,' that resulted in the doctrines and dogmas that formed the foundation of traditional Christian beliefs. These early developments considered the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' to be based on actual literal historical events in the lives of Adam and Eve, and the World Flood was considered as a real historical event iNT and among the church fathers.

Shunyadragon cites all his arguments from one pro-literal source. I could offer other citations that say otherwise. Origen for example clearly states that the six days are anagogical, and so do others, but it would seem from reading the commentaries by The Edinburgh Creation Group that they might perhaps be reading the Fathers a bit too literally and with a mind to finding what they're looking for ... in short, eisegesis.

This is a biased over statement of my case, which is described above.

From my readings, some Fathers did, some didn't. Some, like Augustine, are very difficult to fathom at times and I'm not sure citing a couple of lines does the author justice. Some, like St Basil, highlight the necessity of pastoral consideration in preaching, and seem to hold both views, so the views are broad and various, and the Edinburgh group is over-stating the case in favour of their own position.

The evidence is clear that the majority favored a literal interpretation of Genesis. You are neglecting the fact that the Roman Church ultimately rejected both St Augustine's and Origen's theology and endorsed for many centuries clearly a literal interpretation of Genesis

In the Catholic faith, for example, Genesis 1-11 are regarded as mythical texts, although we tend to allow a lot more of myth than the modern mind, which tends to equate myth with fairy tale.

What the Roman Church proposes now is another story, but the history of the Roman Church is that the doctrines and dogma of the Roman Church are based on a literal interpretation that the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' are based on factual real events in Genesis, and the World Flood would be a factual event to support the beliefs of Jesus Christ's purpose as referred to in the NT. It is more than obvious those that compiled, edited and redacted the books of the NT including the early church fathers believed in a literal Genesis.
 
I agree with some of your interesting points, Thomas, but disagree with others. Largely the model, the picture of God as he is in his own nature that the church fathers promoted was Hellenic and based on Hellenic standards of perfection. The immune and the immutable were enshrined. Hence, God was said to be without body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. You have the soteriology of Irenaeus. On one hand, it does speak of a concrete relationship between God and creation, God absorbing creation in order to purify it. On the other, "He shall subdue the substance of the nature he created." Hence, the salvific act dissolves the temporal-material order and disconnects us from it. You have St. Augustine arguing that God is the supreme cause, never the effect, and without even the shadow of movement. You have, for example, the Council of Chalcedon and the two natures of Christ, which is based on the notion that God cannot suffer. You have St. Anselm arguing that God is passionless and therefore without compassion. As you well know, it was ruled a major heresy to suggest that the Father suffered. I can cite many other examples, but I think you can get my general drift from what I have said.

Quite right. Pantheism or anything akin to it was out. Augustine, for example, made a point of saying that about the worst idea was that the universe is the body of God. That way, any time a child is smacked, God is smacked. Apparently., Augustine forgot the part of Scripture where Christ says that as you do it to the least of these, you do it to me.
I don't agree with your assumption that the Jews came up with this dualistic metaphysics purely on their own. I believe it came from the absorption of Hellenic thought, which had considerable trouble accepting the world of time, change, and motion. Also, the Bible [presents a wholly opposite picture. The temporal-material world is good. The biblical God is no passionless absolute or Unmoved mover; the biblical God is described in highly anthropomorphic terms. The fathers generally quickly brushed theses aside as mere figures of speech, accommodations to our carnal intellects, that really have nothing to do with the actual nature of God. However, I disagree. If those metaphors have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of God, they are not revelatory and are meaningless. I think the biblical writers meant business here. In the Bible, great emotion and change is freely attributed to God, e.g., Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:9. In fact, I find about 100 passages ascribe change to God. Almost every body part is attributed to the. That suggests the ancient Hebrews viewed God as a physical being. The prohibition against making images has nothing to do with God as immaterial. If God has a physical dimension, fi the universe is the body of God, then we can see only but a part of God and anything we would draw would be way off from the whole. The Incarnation strongly suggests God has a body. If the Incarnation is to have any revelatory power, it must reveal God's general MO with creation. Hence, it strongly points to God being incarnate throughout the universe. God may be well "outside" the universe in Thomas, but Scripture pictures God as omnipresent, e.g., Jer. 23:23-24. The Bible never states why God crated the world, but it does imply that God needs the universe. Almost all of the predication of God is relative predication. To be a father, you need children. To be a creator, you need a creation, etc. So I stand on my assumption that the classical or traditional model of God came largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture.
 
Let's deal next with Alexander of Hippo whom liberal interpreters of the Bible hail as believing in the Bible as they do. Not so fast . . .

http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43 said:
Usually liberal Christians refer to these three church leaders to support their ideas. However, we must understand that these three scholars never even thought about interpreting the days of Genesis in a way that today’s liberals understand. To try and do this is a violation of their teaching.

Firstly, even these three leaders who interpreted Scripture in a more symbolic way than the others, never once tried to mix the long ages of the pagan philosophers like Plato with their teaching. Every single person among the Christian leaders who spoke about Creation said it had happened much less than 10,000 years ago. Augustine (AD 354 – 430) could write:

“fewer than 6,000 years have passed since man’s first origin,”

and he referred to the pagans’

“fairy-tales about reputed antiquity, which our opponents may decide to produce in attempts to controvert the authority of our sacred books....”9

Liberals are keen to get Augustine on their side because apparently he believed that the days of Creation were symbolic, and not literal. He tells us in his City of God what he understood about the Creation days:

“The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”10

From this we realise that Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the Creation days, although he admitted he had to take it by faith, rather than by reason. In his earlier book (AD 397 – 398), Confessions, he does spiritualize the Genesis account of Creation to communicate with a different audience, but his City of God was completed only four years before his death, and, as shown above, this later book shows a literal understanding of the days of Genesis.

He did teach an idea known as the “seminal principle,” which some liberals have jumped on with glee, stating that Augustine was a theistic evolutionist. This is, however, reading too much into his work from a post-Darwin mindset. He simply believed that all living things contained within them seeds, which grew to form the complete species, but that all kinds of living things had fixed boundaries. These seeds, he believed, grew rapidly into fully mature living forms during the creation process – there was no thought about millions of years in between each stage of the days of Genesis.11
 
I'm not sure what "liberals" you are referring to here, Shuny,and it kind of sounds like you are stereotyping liberals, for some reason. Now, I would describe myself as a liberal and I haven't jumped "with glee" on the "seminal principle." I have said that Augustine takes Genesis in an allegorical sense because he did not believe God works through time. That is definitely the case in his "Genesis in the Literal Sense."
Also, when I am discussing or refereeing to Hellenic metaphysics, I am generally referring to the doctrine of God, the concept of divine attributes. For example, Augustine is Hellenic in the sense he sees God as immutable and wholly atemporal.
 
To be a father, you need children. To be a creator, you need a creation, etc. So I stand on my assumption that the classical or traditional model of God came largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture.
They are your assumptions, after all. Not the conclusions of the Christian Tradition, however.

But more to the point: What do you need to be God?
 
Then the Christian Tradition needs some updating and correction.
I think that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization as a personality. Consciousness requires complexity, contrast, and that means the contrast of actuality with potentiality. Personality also requires complexity, and that means God enters into the multitudinous diversity of creation. What is real is what is physical material, has extension; so God needs the universe as his or her body. God starts out as unconscious imagination, but with a creative drive to self-actualize. Nothing put that imagination in God, God did not create it, it just exists. God is at once conditioned by creativity and also conditions it. God is driven by creativity, but creativity has no existence apart from God. God was never merely potential, purely unconscious, as there has always been some sort of created world. Before this universe, there was another, different one, and so on. God by nature is also a social, relational being, and therefore cannot exist in isolation. Hence, to become a self, Good needs an other. A comparable theme is also found in Eckhart and Boehme, by the way.
 
I'm not sure what "liberals" you are referring to here, Shuny,and it kind of sounds like you are stereotyping liberals, for some reason.

I have no problem with the use of 'liberals' and 'conservatives' that divide both religion and politics in America. This is not stereotyping, because it is the reality of a deep chasm between the two Christianities. You may use other words, but the distinction remains a growing wall of 'no compromise' on the right and religious conservatism, which overwhelmingly endorses a literal Genesis, and infallible literal scripture.

Now, I would describe myself as a liberal and I haven't jumped "with glee" on the "seminal principle." I have said that Augustine takes Genesis in an allegorical sense because he did not believe God works through time. That is definitely the case in his "Genesis in the Literal Sense."
Also, when I am discussing or refereeing to Hellenic metaphysics, I am generally referring to the doctrine of God, the concept of divine attributes. For example, Augustine is Hellenic in the sense he sees God as immutable and wholly atemporal.

Seeing God as atemporal as in Hellenistic metaphysics does not change the fact that Augustine viewed Creation as expressed in temporal terms as described in a literal genesis and his literary work 'City of God.'
 
Last edited:
And it doesn't change the fact, he viewed creation as atemporal in "Genesis in the Literal Sense" either. So, just what was your point? And yes, you were steoeoty9oing with all this nonsense about liberals "jumping with glee" on Augustine.
 
And it doesn't change the fact, he viewed creation as atemporal in "Genesis in the Literal Sense" either. So, just what was your point? And yes, you were steoeoty9oing with all this nonsense about liberals "jumping with glee" on Augustine.

The point is Augustine considered Genesis literal and described it so in the 'City of God.'
 
Yes, but apparently he was of two minds on it. I just explained about "Genesis in teh Literal Sense" and do not want to repeat myself.
 
Then the Christian Tradition needs some updating and correction.
Oh, we get told that regularly, LOL. If we changed our doctrines to accommodate every criticism, why, there'd be nothing left at all!

I think that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization as a personality.
Ah, pantheism. That's rejected by the Abrahamics. To me it's determining the nature of God according to observable nature, an anthropomorphism.

Consciousness requires complexity...
Animal consciousness does. We should not therefore presume that Divine 'consciousness' conforms to the same principle – God is not an animal.

A comparable theme is also found in Eckhart and Boehme, by the way.
Where, if I may ask.
 
Then you didn't have very solid doctrines, to start with.
Where is that rejected? The Bible presents a highly anthropomorphic of God. Jer. 23:23-24 speaks of God's omnipresence. Now if creation was something totally foreign to God, then God could not be omnipresent. I Cor. 15:28, plus the incarnation, suggest the universe e is the body of God.
Yes, we should presume the same holds for God. Otherwise, it makes no sense to speak of God's consciousness. There needs to be an analogy between ourselves and God; otherwise, we can know nothing about God. I pointed this out before. I view the universe as the body of God and so I have no trouble thinking of God as the biggest animal, the biggest organism that there is.

I thought I pointed out that Eckhart does that in his doctrine of the Trinity. Boehme dose this throughout his writings.
 
Then you didn't have very solid doctrines, to start with.
LOL. Excuse the laughter, Hoghead, but that's the first time I've heard Catholic doctrine being considered 'soft'!

I pointed this out before. I view the universe as the body of God and so I have no trouble thinking of God as the biggest animal, the biggest organism that there is.
OK then. Suffice to say I don't.

And that's about as much as needs be said.

I thought I pointed out that Eckhart does that in his doctrine of the Trinity.
I know, I was asking you to cite where he does that. Which sermon?
 
I am citing Eckhart largely from Pfeiffer, "Deutsche Mystiker." Try pp. 514, 605.
I'm not calling Catholic doctrines anything. I have no idea what doctrines you are talking abut. Are you trying to speak for the Catholic Church? Is that it? I do think the classical model of God, from both Catholicism and Protestantism, needs a major facelift.

"And that's as much as needs be said"? Isn't this a discussion group? I'm curios just what your objections might be.
 
I am citing Eckhart largely from Pfeiffer, "Deutsche Mystiker." Try pp. 514, 605.
OK. Don't have that. I do have his works in translation, which is why I asked which sermon.

Are you trying to speak for the Catholic Church? Is that it?
No. I'm speaking as a Catholic, but not for the Church.

I do think the classical model of God, from both Catholicism and Protestantism, needs a major facelift.
I rather think it's your grasp of classical philosophy that's in need of an overhaul. You cite Eckhart yet Eckhart's God is nothing at all like the God you're talking about.

"And that's as much as needs be said"? Isn't this a discussion group? I'm curios just what your objections might be.
I've no objection, simply that when you and I say 'God' we're talking about two completely different things. We're talking passed each other. Much as I've tried to engage you, there's no actual discussion.
 
Back
Top