Cookie Permissions

Monday, January 30, 2006

Forthcoming Lecture

Do you live within reach of Manchester?

On Thursday 23rd February, I shall deliver a lecture at the Manchester Metropolitan University on "Orthodoxy and Creationism." (You will gather from the quotes in the last Blog post that we don't approve!)

This lecture will take place in a room in the Geoffrey Manton Building, (check at Reception), Rosamond Street West, off Oxford Road, Manchester, (opposite the Aquatics Centre) from 7.00pm to 9.00pm. All are welcome. A donation of £1 is suggested toward costs but this is not mandatory. Here is a Map Link.


Anthony said...

Fr., being in the U.S. I won't be able to attend, but I would very much appreciate it if you would post your notes from the lecture online.

Dave said...

I can't see where the Fathers quoted said anything in contravention of young earth creation.

It would seem that they are used to support an unstated assumption that science does not support creationism or Intelligent Design.

If by using the first person plural ("we don't approve!") you are saying that rejection of Creationism and Intelligent Design is THE Orthodox view, like Anthony (though perhaps for a different reason) I would like to see your notes.

No doubt so would the good folks at Touchstone, where the publisher and two of the senior editors are Orthodox (including an archpriest in your own patriarchate) and Phillip E. Johnson (the "father" of ID) is a contributing editor.

Father Gregory said...

Dear Dave

You misunderstand me. I am saying that there is nothing in the Fathers that BINDS us to YEC or any other variant. What the fathers do resist (and this is particularly clear in the quotes I have used) is a theological approach that deprecates truth from the natural sciences.

Dave said...

Father, bless!

And thank you for that clarification.

I am interested in your own view, particularly as to whether you think a literal Adam and Eve are necessary for Paul's theology expressed in Romans 5, I Corinthians 15, and on an entirely different matter in I Timothy 2.

Father Gregory said...

The word "Adam" in its Hebrew etymology is generic. The closest we can get in English is Earthman or perhaps Everyman, certainly Mankind. With this in mind there is every reason to suppose that the ancients, including the New Testment authors, did not necessarily ad additional think of this representative inclusive figure to be an actual historical individual. It certainly doesn't require to be such theologically. The contrast between old Adam and new Adam works whether Adan was an historical individual or not.

Biologically, the idea that man came before woman is incorrect. Men have nipples because in the womb we all start off as female and only when certain hormones kick in do men become male.

Father Gregory said...

That should say "additionally" typo

Dave said...

I still don't understand how this will work with Romans 5. Why would Paul say δι' ενος ανθρωπου and follow this with εις ταντας ανθπωπους?

Biologically it can be correct that the man came before the woman, if Adam literally came before Eve. I'm just not sure how you can read Paul's prescriptions in I Timothy 2:14 without at least saying that Paul was referring to two actual people.

Father Gregory said...

Dear Dave

Your questions have prompted me to place a postscript to my Ancestral Sin article here ...

(The clue to your question lies in the NECESSARY REPRESENTATIVE character of Earth-Man).

Popular Posts