Does Science Contradict Genesis? | ft. Drs. Nathan Jacobs & Chris Firestone (Part 1)

Hey everybody, welcome back to the Nathan Jacobs podcast. Before I jump into the episode today, just want to draw your attention to uh my very cool stapler. Some of you noticed it. Comes to us courtesy of the gay dolphin. Do with that what you will. So it is Tuesday here on the podcast and Tuesday is the day that if we have something unconventional like say an interview, today is the day that we drop it and we do have one such interview for you. So, some weeks back, some of you may remember a series of interviews that I did with Chris Firestone of the Firestone Files. Now, Chris is a philosophy professor. He's actually a former professor of mine and then we became colleagues.

We taught together and eventually co-authors and all sorts of things like that. You can check out those old episodes if you want to get a sense of the type of work we've done together in our history in the world of philosophy. But Chris came out recently here to Nashville in order to corner me for yet another interview. Now, why would he do that? Well, the reason is because he noticed that I was discussing a topic that he found rather intriguing. I had recently dropped an episode on the question of whether or not the Eastern Church fathers would endorse the sorts of objections that are typically leveled against evolution in favor of young earth creationism.

And Chris noticed that this got a fair bit of attention and he thought the topic was rather intriguing. He also knew that I had another episode coming where I would discuss evolution more directly. So being intrigued with this topic, uh Chris decided that he wanted to have a conversation with me about young earth and old earth and evolution and theology and science and all the related topics that you might uh tumble into when engaging a topic like this. And so we sat down, the interview ran a little north of 3 hours. So we're going to go ahead and break that up into two parts.

So today we'll go ahead and begin with part one of my interview with Chris Firestone about religion, science, evolution, young earth, old earth, and all the rest. So enjoy. Hey everybody, good morning from sunny Nashville. I am Dr. Chris Firestone. This is the Firestone Files with the Nathan Jacobs podcast coming at you today. Yeah, he came back, cornered me once again. I decided to do a do a second round. Yeah. Well, we did a number of interviews last time I was in Nashville and uh you heard I was coming through again and you said, "Are you guys bringing that stuff?" I said, "Absolutely. I'm bringing the gear to to shoot another one with you because those uh those interviews were so wellreceived."

It got it caught us both by surprise a little bit. Yeah. Um who wants to listen to us? Well, you and I coming from the two worlds that seem to be engaging more than ever these days, the the uh the Eastern Orthodox world and the evangelical world. Right. Right. And uh last time we talked about the tree of theology and the uh the severed limb and how do we how do we frame the dialogue? Is it going to be individuals? Is it going to be communities or congregations? or is it going to be sort of the broader uh denominational uh influence? We talked a lot about that stuff and that was fascinating. Yeah. Well, I think it was also timely.

Neither you nor I knew that there was about to happen online a big blowup between, you know, a well-known uh Protestant apologist uh Gavin Ortland and then, you know, a bunch of different Orthodox folks uh Jonathan Pou and Steven D. Young. And so kind of looked at that and go we we just recorded a we just recorded a podcast on this entire question. Um and you know I it didn't get nearly as many views as as the controversy that was front and center but my impression was that those from the comments anyway that those who ended up uh happening upon it during that time found it refreshing because they noticed a very different tone. the fact that you and I well were very long, you know, very old friends.

And so, uh, we were able to dialogue with mutual respect and and understanding and no real feathers being ruffled because, you know, we know each other so well. It's it's it's easy to talk about these sorts of things dispassionately. So, well, yeah. Well, we've seen each other's journeys for quite some time. And that builds in a little bit of humility and respect. And I think the friendship piece was a big part of it. But I think the other part of it was the fact that we have philosophical training. Yeah. Well, that helps. Faith and faith and reason have been, you know, for a long time a part of our, you know, DNA, you know, of approaching life.

And I I think that that's at least in part what, you know, the anthropology of Christianity offers us is is that is that in kind of engagement and um and so that was super cool. Now the reason I'm kind of wanting to interview you this time is because another set of issues has come up and similarly it seems like it's very pmical and I and I don't think you think see it that way at least from the stuff I've seen and I've never seen it that way you know like this titanic battle between even evolution and and and Christianity and all of that. Yeah. Well, you had this recent podcast that I saw on um uh does the do the church fathers um reject evolution?

Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Now, you noticed that one, huh? I did. Coming out of the evangelical world, we know how sensitive an issue this is because evangelicals are divided on the on the topic, but they're not necessarily divided as publicly as podcasters typically uh would would make themselves. And that came to my experience at Trinity because they got this big Templeton grant years ago for the creation. I remember that. Yeah. So they were doing quite a lot of bringing scholars in. But one of the things I noticed about it cuz I went to a few of the events they had there probably and maybe not even a tenth of them. They had a lot of stuff going on in the question.

But was behind closed doors. Everybody who signed up signed up to to kind of, you know, let what happens here stay here. You know, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. what happened in Deerfield stays in Deerfield so that people could let their hair down and discuss where they come on the you know you know where they land on this issue. Um and so I sat through a couple of those sessions and intriguing really because I guess I never really thought enough about it or thought it's significant enough to really to take it to be orthodoxy proper.

Right? that we're still discussing times when there were no human beings and and I'm like how do we why are so much at stake on this particular question. So it intrigued me in the in the first instance but what also intrigued me was the fact that the pastors and others are all over the map right on this question. Yeah. Well, I think that's this since you're talking about just sort of framing your experience with it. I think it's it's worth noting something about my own. One of the reasons where it never really struck me I mean first of all okay I was never uh part of the evangelical world and that sort of committed way of you know I am an evangelical or something like that.

I float in those circles obviously, but you know, even when I was raised Lutheran, I I I know I'm sure there are plenty of Lutheran who are young earth creationists, but anybody who's heard my story or me heard me talk about my journey. One of when I talk about some of the early formative experiences that I had, um, one of them was, you know, just my mom introducing me to apologetics as a very kid, yeah, a very young kid, right? And one of the things that I remember, I still remember to this day was uh that when my private Lutheran grade school that I went to was going to talk about creation science, she was she just told me that outright.

She said, "Well, they're going to they're going to teach you that the world is, you know, was made in six 24-hour days only some, you know, 6,000 plus years ago. Uh that's that's not true. Don't listen to what they're saying." And then she introduced me to certain apologists like Hugh Ross. Um, and and that was actually occasioned partly by the fact that I myself had been reading Genesis. And while I wasn't raising any questions about the age of the earth, I noticed things in Genesis that I was like, you know, mom, it seems to me like Moses thinks that the world is a flat plane held up by pillars with a dome over top that there's water on the outside of the dome that breaks in in the form of rain.

I'd later find out that's exactly what a lot of ancient neareastern scholars think Moses is describing. But that was part of how she ended up introducing me to saying, "Well, no, no, there's a more scientific way of reading Genesis." And she introduced me to Hugh Ross. Now, I'm not an advocate of Hugh Ross. But I think for me, those sorts of early experiences made me very open-minded about the topic. It it exposed me to the fact that okay, there's going to be some people who read this text this way and uh they're going to tell me that, you know, it's it's, you know, only 6 24-hour days. The world is 6,500 years old or something like that.

And there are going to be other people who are like, "No, I don't think that's the right reading of the text. I think the science on the age of the cosmos being 13.8 billion is probably right." You know, whatever it is. And so for me it was never really something that I approached with any sort of um sense of stakes right that somehow somehow you know how you come down on this question you know really is going to determine uh anything about salvation or how you I I'd heard the pmics right well if you read Genesis in that way you know then then this is a slippery slope down to you know dismissing all these different things in the Bible but I just never saw that because my exposure to old earthers was they're taking the text seriously, right?

Like they're they're just refuting how you're reading it. Um and so um so for me I think that was that was critical cuz I and then and then in my own experiences I I knew plenty of people I bumped into actually I think more people than not in my experience were not young earthers. they accepted uh the science of the day and as as probably broadly accurate you know just saw that is describing how God brought about the cosmos. Um and so in my experience the entire young earth dogmatic this is a this is a cornerstone issue that will determine everything about how you read the Bible and about your salvation and all this sort of stuff.

I was that was just not a culture I bumped into very much. Not even a Trinity or I floated in those circles. Well, it wasn't it didn't seem to me like either one of us I mean we were both uh early on as far as I recall taking a very high view of scripture and that all truth is God's truth and that if we search the scriptures we're going to find truth. And yet we were told that we had to hold certain positions. And I don't think either one of us is against any particular issue as being formative of orthodoxy per se.

But we are wanting to seek after it like what is it intending what is what are the scriptures intending to tell us about the age of the earth? What are they intending to tell us about human anthropology and about the origin of of humanity and all of that? And that's something that's I think deeply rooted and something we shared in common. But I I guess I was always mystified as to why is there so much energy and focused on a particular view here when we're still we're thinking we're trying to figure it out. Is it 6,500 years or is it you know 13 billion years? Um and that's a pretty wide gap. something a thoughtful person wants to sort of tangle with a little bit.

Well, and I think in general, one of the impressions that I had is um I I think I've always had an allergy to um forms of fundamentalism that seem to lack nuance, right? And I guess my impression again not having floated much in in sort of a young earth circle was that there was some mode of close-minded dogmatism that was more off-putting than anything else. Right. Um I don't mind at all having discussions about uh critiquing science, right? I think it's really good. I think it's a good thing when somebody from an outside discipline or from an inside discipline starts to challenge the status quo. I think that's good. You know, otherwise you get stagnation within that discipline.

Um, even if the challenge is wrong, it's good at at least shoring up and fortifying, right, uh, the common wisdom that's out there right now because it has to defend itself. So, I actually see value to that that there's no part of me that that is uh is unsympathetic to somebody saying, you know, I think I think maybe some of the science is dubious, right? Or some of the presumptions of the science are faulty. There's no part of me about that. But uh there is a part of me that is is really does have a bit of an allergy to the idea that you know somebody comes in and shuts down conversation and starts to declare that that this topic is a matter of salvation and you know and and somehow creates this very you know line drawing issue.

And I think more so, and we could talk about obviously this as we go on, I don't think there's any danger to a person's soul. If they believe in evolution or they believe in old earth or whatever it is, I don't see I don't see a problem, right? I don't see how that affects uh their relationship to God in in some sort of uh detrimental way. But I'll tell you what does affect a person's relationship with God is if when they hear about Christ, they hear that you, by the way, need to reject every scientific discipline as false and as part of a grand conspiracy meant to undermine the Bible. Yes. Uh and you need to start there in order to believe in Christ.

Well, that is a high demand. In fact, you know, it almost calls to mind words from Christ. you heap burdens on men and don't lift a finger to to move them yourself. I do worry that there are that there are people who won't even entertain Christianity um precisely because they have this general sense largely from young earth creation apologists uh that in order to become a Christian I have to reject all of science and that's just too high of a demand. Yeah. No. Well, I think that's the good side of the creation project as it were that the evangelicals at least behind closed doors were able to come together and to say we have some pretty significant differences here.

You know, there's about a third of us in this room that hold to a young earth view. There's a third that's an old earth view and there's a third that are kind of maybe theistic evolution. maybe they're they're they're deagers or they're some variation thereof. Let's have a family discussion about this. I thought the whole thing was really healthy. Um how do we get them out of the closet? You know, how do we get this because uh because congregations want a certain, you know, kind of ethos and a certain sort of theological bent or maybe they have one themselves and they're looking for that uh flavor of things. But you and I never really approached issues quite in such a sectarian way.

It was always about where does the truth lead us here? Where's the conversation go? Yeah. No. Well, and I think just before we we go there, I think something that's important to understand is um often times I think I get the impression I definitely got the impression in the comments and the response to my recent video. um that a lot of people think you either accept the young earth position or you're an evolutionist, right? And you accept everything that science tells you. Yes. And the problem I have with that is that that's a false dichotomy. And it's not even reflective of the positions that are out there. There are plenty of people like see Steven Meyers for example. Yes.

Who is definitely accepts all of the you know age of the cosmos that you know that goes with the 13.8 8 billion I believe I believe he just sort of accepts that side of the science um but is skeptical about evolution and so there are a number of us who and you know who who end up taking this position of saying no I think I think the aging of the cosmos is correct uh I just don't believe in macroeolution I don't think one species ever gives rise to another species uh and and and that's sort of a a middle position that I think a lot of people don't recognize.

I think there's also one of the things that there's this strange presumption from many uh young earthers that the moment you reject uh the age of the earth as 6,500 years or whatever it might be um that all of a sudden there's a host of other things. You don't believe in a historical Adam and Eve. You don't believe that the Genesis is describing any sort of history and so all the characters are suddenly made up mythical figures or something like that. And soon, you know, the genealogies of Christ don't make any sense. It's a slippery slope. And so there's this claim that somehow all these things tumble downhill and none of and those are all nonsequittors. None of that follows.

Um and I think that's important to acknowledge that there is a spectrum of positions here. um from full-on reject all of you know modern scientific sensibilities and and embrace young earth to accept all of modern science and fully defer to it and just say well that's their domain we're doing theology over here which is a different domain to something that's more critical which would be where I sit right where I think there's a lot that's true in what more likely true in what science currently thinks and there's probably a lot that's false. Well, I think that it's it's interesting cuz I think I've heard you say this before.

There's a similar mindset that's at work in certain really staunch young earth type positions and in the evolution position. You know, if you go to a place, I remember my wife and I were walking around in the uh in the botanical gardens, I think it was, or zoo maybe in in Minneapolis, and they had Darwin's walk, and there's this plaque after plaque that says in the first million years this happened, this, you know, and it's like this is sheer dogma. This is this is the every bit is wrong, right? Somebody just declaring this is the secular myth, right? Right.

And so is that where's the where's this seeking after the truth here in in our in in these domains and how do they get away with this kind of uh narrative uh without you know on an open question right and so so in other words the whole thing is understandable that certain evangelicals or certain religious adherence are tired of culture feeding us the same sort of thing but you got to look at yourself as well. Yeah.

No, and I I do think that's right is that there's a certain sense of dogmatism on the evolution side um where uh you know well what was the uh what was the documentary that does was done ways back no intelligence allowed or whatever and it was actually the entire expelled I think it was expelled that's what it was right expelled no intelligence allowed and it was on um basically the marginalization of scientists who have the audacity to suggest intelligent design and that evolution is inadequate yes in order to account for all of this. Yes. Right. And I do think that's true, right?

That in terms of one of the things that I think worries me on that side is that with regard to the sciences, in terms of how science is presented to the public, yes, it's presented as knowledge. Full stop. Right. uh and there's no there doesn't seem to be in acknowledging to the public that these are the current working understandings of things that are subject to change and to being overturned. It's almost as if behind the curtain, you know, all of the scientists know well science is fallible and and some of these things can be contested and in fact they're going to be contested.

Uh but to the public, we need to tell the myth uh with a with with a straight face and and assure them that we are the priesthood of the of the white coats who are going to go ahead and and tell you all truth that is too deep for you to understand. Well, that's been I mean you and I have studied the history of ideas for quite a long time and that that's been common to every age that the current scientific theory is doesn't have the problems the old ones have. That they're right. That's he's totally right.

You know, when when Newton comes along and and clarifies the heavens and the earth have the same kind of principles at work, well, we're done, you know, and uh and so science has the same sort of issues. It it gets out over its skis. And I think we've done a lot of work. So anybody's watching out there, we're, you know, we've done a lot of work in terms of trying to show that contemporary philosophers and scientists um there's they have the advantage of perspective of being this far along and having seen all these dialogues, but they're not yet in the truth with a capital T. Like they somehow have a deep religious orthodoxy that transcends everything that's going on.

The epistemic humility of science is really valuable. Yes. Um, and you can have both, right? You can say that science does extraordinary things and that it does seem that it's it's providing us with deeper understandings of the world while still saying its interpretation of what it's looking at isn't necessarily infallible. Yeah.

And I think that's the disconnect that a lot of people I think a lot of people get caught up in that battle of interpretations and the facts kind of are used as weapons more than truth seeeking implements if you will or objects and so okay so we kind of covered the polls that is this you know the the young earth position literalist reading a day you know seven days of creation and the problem with science science declaring despite the fact that the history of ideas shows science is always reforming and always in a sense wrong on something um and and and and needing to do better.

What you did in your video which I thought was such a masterful job was to begin to use the church fathers and so forth to help us to articulate what that middle conversation would look like. And one of the things you did, I don't know if this is the best way in, but uh you talked about orthodoxy and you talked about heresy. And then you talked about trying to create the a space to for opinions, judgments, conversations to take place on issues that don't necessarily migrate in either one of those directions. Yeah. Well, that's actually a category of theology within Eastern Orthodoxy. Yeah. What's the luminon? It just it just means theological opinion, right?

And so within orthodoxy there's a recognition that yes, like when you look at say the seven ecumenical councils of the church, right? These main councils uh that really carve out, you know, the faith handed down uh by the saints. Um you'll start to see things in there that are clearly heresies, right? Aras of Alexandria starts to say, you know, I don't think the son of God, second person of the trinity is God. I think he's a creature. Right? And everybody's like, "Yep, that's that's a heresy." Uh, and just so people know, like the word heresy, it's from the word choice. So, it's you're choosing a false idea is what that says, right? You're choosing a falsehood.

And the reason that's important is because Aries is being confronted by the church and being told, "No, that's a falsehood contrary to the church. So, if you choose that, you are a heretic." Meaning, you are choosing falsehood, right? Like that's what a heresy is, right? Uh an orthodoxy is of course a right doctrine, a right way of thinking that's saying like this thing is true. No, the son of God, the second person of the trinity is of the same nature as God the father who begat him, right? And uh and that would be an orthodoxy something that anyone who is going to embrace the faith given over by the saints. You well that's part of it, right?

So if you're going to have, you know, orthodox beliefs, that's that's part of the faith. And then you have these other things that are in the spectrum of things that anybody familiar with the church fathers um from this first thousand years will notice that the church fathers are not completely uniform on everything, right? Um can angels be redeemed? Well, there's a spectrum of that. Now, there's a a clear consensus, a majority position. I'd like to know. Can tell us, Dr. D? But I'll do I'll do a I promise I'll do a podcast on that since you requested. But uh but no, the short answer is the clear majority position is no. That the fallen angels, the demons cannot be redeemed. Period.

Um but there are some outliers who say something different. Messiius of Messa seems to think that well there was a window where they could have repented but they didn't and that window is now closed. There are other people who think talk about corruption is never permanent. Pseudo Dianius talks about this and in the context of the demons that seems to leave this crack for maybe they could uh repent and be redeemed. You have certain early Christian writers like Clement of Alexandria who lean toward universalism such that even the devil himself will be saved, right? And you find out actually saints like St. Isaac the Syrian who who does talk about the redemption of demons. Um and so now those are extreme outliers.

But what's interesting is when you look at it, there's an underlying rationale. So there's a reason why those who say they can't be redeemed say they can't be redeemed. And this actually goes to the metaphysical differences between angels and man. The fact that you are a complex being who can be unmade and remade and they're like angels aren't that way. So if they go wrong, they can't be they can't be fixed. Yes. Um that's the majority of opinion. Whereas then you have others who sit within this spectrum.

You have people like contemporary saints like Elder Pisios and others who take the same position who are like well they could be but they won't be which is a different position than that majority position you would find in like John of Damascus and then as I said you find outliers like you know like Isaac the Syrian who says talks about the redemption of angels and then you have others like Nessie of Aessa like I said who said who says that there was a window of time when it was possible but it's no longer possible and So what do you do with that spectrum? Well, one way of approaching is saying, well, we take the majority and we reject all the others as heresy.

But the others aren't actually identified as heresy. Yes. And so they fall in this theological opinion where the safe majority position, if you're going to defer to the church fathers, we know which one that is. They can't be redeemed. Yes. But does that does does the appearance of these other perspectives in these other fathers make those fathers heretics? Well, actually, no. That's where you sit in this space of what's called theologumon where it's like this issue is is a theological opinion sitting there in that gray area on the borders between orthodoxy and heresy. Now what is interesting though and this is very important. It doesn't make it appear freefor all, right? Um you do see that there is a common rationale. Yes.

As I mentioned, the ones who say they can't be redeemed. One of the things that you find in none of the positions is nobody ever says they can't be redeemed because God's unwilling. Yes. Because that would be contrary to the consensus of the father's unprovidence, which is that God wills the good of the creature. Um and so none of the positions ever place at the feet of God the the lack of redemption of the fallen angels. Yes. Uh because that would be contrary to the teachings of the faith on on divine providence and the divine disposition. And so anyway, I think that's a category of theology that a lot of people are unaware of, but it's a very real one historically speaking.

Well, from an evangelical perspective, it shouldn't be a surprising category. And here's here's why. I mean, if you go into an evangelical church, I was in, you know, been in an evangelical free church for 25 years before I moved down to the uh Bible belt here. But issues like Armenianism versus Calvinism versus, you know, maybe we have molanism. We have various and none of those are considered heretical. They're all and they're all represented in the church body because um you know the way that you know a priesthood of believers and we have a a congregation has a high view of scripture and and so forth.

But that whole middle ground area is just accepted but it seems to be an anathema in the evangelical world to to to put that into you know issues of creation evolution. It's like, can we still have that middle ground discussion and can can we still have it seems like there's space for it. It's just not practiced that way. Well, and this is what's interesting is that I know um I know that there are within orthodox circles. I'll talk about it in the Orthodox circles because it's a slightly different thing, right? Like in in evangelicalism, obviously you're not part of the Orthodox church. Uh and you can see our entire other podcast on that whole thing.

But um but you know obviously there are certain things that do divide denominations, right? But usually the difference is to say, well, we're not going to share a church or be part of, you know, the same congregation. But I I I don't get the impression that the Lutheran think the reformed are damned. Right. Right. Um but nonetheless, they have these sort of confessional boundary lines that separate those churches into these denominations that are not in communion with each other. But within orthodoxy, I think what's peculiar to me is that in the comments, you would definitely see there are definitely people who are like, "No, no, no. This is this is part of the consensus of the fathers. This is part of the faith.

You have to affirm young earth." Um, now my suspicion is that most of those are Protestant converts who probably carried that dogma. Just a suspicion. My suspicion is that uh the majority if not the totality of those are Protestant converts who had a fundamentalist position on this outside of the Orthodox Church and they carry that into the Orthodox church. That's my suspicion. Um and and they're unnerved or you know upset by the fact that there are people who don't share that within the Orthodox Church. But I mean look when I say people who don't share that I'm not just talking about people like me. I'm talking about like Metropolitan Jonah, right?

A bishop who has been cornered by folks like this before and insisted like, "No, that's that's your old Protestant fundamentalism. You got to drop it. The Orthodox Church does not have a dogmatic stance on this." But this goes into a certain uh way of reading the church fathers. They'll say that is well I suppose this this would carry us into territory that's outside of the nature of the evangelical dispute because obviously with evangelicals what the church fathers think about this or that you know might be interesting but it's not you know in any way definitive for the conversation whereas of course in orthodoxy it is. Yes.

Uh and so but you're if I'm hearing you correctly you're not saying when you you have to drop the tone or the dogmatism or the or the insistence that this is orthodoxy. What you're not saying is you're wrong or it couldn't possibly be the case. Well, you know, it's we weren't there. We weren't witnesses. What we're doing is looking at the science. We're looking at what the word is speaking to us. And, you know, I I might not be there. I can see how you might be there in your in your journey. Um, yeah.

So I mean I guess you know if if so rather than asking you know framing it as you know what do I think about the age of the earth or about evolution or something like that what do I think of young earth like do I think it's impossible um I'll say this like do I think it's impossible I I don't think it's impossible there is an asterisk I'm going to come back to that um but you know I I've said to people before I mean God could have made the world five minutes ago Right. And given us all false memories and given it the appearance of age and that's possible, right?

So, so 6,500 years ago with the appearance of age, what you know that I I suppose that's possible as well. Now, like I said, I want to there's uh there's an asterisk I want to come back to on that. Um, but I will say this, I I see two potential problems that I think are worth considering. The first is that, and this is part of what I was getting at in that video, a lot of the underlying theology in defense of young earth, um, there is no death full stop before the fall of man. Um, you know, that the ages, uh, that the days of the earth are the days of Genesis are human days or solar days or something like that.

A lot of those sorts of assumptions I think are theologically faulty. And it's not just that they're theologically faulty, you know, in an from an orthodox perspective. The certain things that I was pointing out with the church fathers, but I think they're they're contrary to orthodoxy. And as I pointed out, there are dogmatic positions amongst the Eastern Orthodox uh amongst the the church fathers that contradict those things. And so what I would say to an orthodox person right who wants to entertain this is say is it possible for you to believe the earth is young? Sure there are church fathers who think the earth is young but their theology on that point is not the same as the protestant fundamentalists. They have a different theology.

And so if you're going to continue to hold that position you better excise from your theology your old Protestant fundamentalist assumptions. Uh and there are a host of those that I talk about in there. So I think there is like I think there is a fundamental theological difference between well east and west between the orthodox position and the protestant position. Um and I think that's important to recognize that simply because the two might agree on the age of the earth doesn't mean that they agree theologically. And I think it's important to highlight that. It's important that an Orthodox convert doesn't carry their old Protestant theology into orthodoxy and make that part of the Orthodox position if they're going to take that position. That's one thing.

The other thing about it is that I think it's I think it's clearly not dogma, right? And that's the other thing that I've pointed out and that's part of what I'm trying to do in that that video in order to say that the typical defeaters to thinking the earth is really old or whatever it might be uh really don't hold water in the light of the church fathers even if many of them think the the world is young. And so the idea of turning it into an orthodoxy as opposed to the lagguminon uh I I think is problematic. That's a that's a second thing that I would say.

And then the third thing I would say is this and this is just a philosophical consideration. uh we are very accustomed I've talked plenty of times about um the fact that the classical Christian view orthodox east and west uh is that when we talk about the omnipotence of God God can do anything right he's all powerful uh the traditional view is actually qualified omnipotence right um can he make square circles and the classical answer is no right and this goes to an entire aside on realism uh that I that I won't go into because you can watch any number of my podcasts on this point and I have Yeah. Yeah.

But suffice it to say that the classical Christian tradition east and west is that is a realist position that says look the structures of reality that our mind identifies the structures of reality that give rise to or foundations to things like logic yes um are actually divine in origin. And so contradictions are not just contradictions for us. They are contradictions for per se. And so when we start to assert certain things which are logical nonsense like a square that has four sides but doesn't have four sides cuz it's a circle. We haven't really said anything. Right. In order to talk about God can do anything, you have to first present a thing. And nonsensical word combinations aren't things. Yes.

And so you can see this even in you know the very first ecumenical controversy the Aryan dispute where basically the question is can God create a second god? Arias is saying the son of God is created and they're saying well if he's created then all these things that are true creatures hold about him and Aras at some point pivots and says well no no he creates him but he makes him immutable in all these and he assigns all these divine attributes and the church fathers and the council this is as dogmatic as you get in terms of dogma say that's impossible yes not even god can create a second god and I know that that's shocking to a lot of people to say that there are certain things God can't do because conceptually what they imagine is that there's something out here, this possibility and God just lacks the juice to bring it about.

Yes. But the position is actually different. It's saying this thing so-called thing over here isn't a thing at all because it's just nonsense. A created God is not a thing. Yes. A square that's also a circle is not a thing. Right? Like these are just nonsensical words. And so in order to say God can do this, you need to present a this. Now the reason I think that's relevant in this context is one of the I said with an asterisk of course God could make the world 6,500 years ago with the appearance of age and so on. But there is a question that I would raise just as a philosopher on this on this topic.

There are certain things amongst the contradictions that are impossible or things that are contrary to God's nature. So St. James in the Bible says that God cannot lie. Well, is that an indictment of God? Well, no, it's not an indictment of God. First of all, from, you know, a Christian perspective, all vice and sins and things like that are actually privative. They're actually deprivations. They're not additive. If I become vicious, I haven't grown in some way. I've actually diminished in some way. Yes. And so, saying that God can't lie isn't an indictment of God. It's actually an extension of his fullness and his perfection.

And one of the things that I would naturally raise is that it's all too common for people to say if if this thing I'm presenting is free of logical contradiction, then God can obviously do it. And there is this sort of second layer of yes, if it's also in keeping with his character, with his goodness, with his being, because even if something is not inherently logically contradictory, it might run into contradiction when paired with God. for example, lying, which is ultimate reality. You're a realist, right? That's right.

And so the reason I bring that up is because one of the questions that I raise as a philosopher is if I'm going to say that God has created the world with the appearance of age such that no matter what you're looking at you know geology uh you know biology astronomy astronomy if I go into all the different disciplines and I inductively look at them the induction leads me to the conclusion of a certain age of the cosmos know then I have to raise the question of whether that's a mode of deception. Yeah.

And and so I do question from that philosophical perspective is the theory that says no the earth is very young but it looks old cuz God designed it to look old such that every mode of induction is going to lead you to believe that it's really really old. I'm not sure that's actually a coherent proposal because I don't believe God is a deceiver. And so that does raise a question I think philosophically for me of saying is that possible? I'm not sure if that's possible. It might be possible, right? Maybe it's possible. Maybe there's a way of framing it such that there would be a good reason for God to do that, but I'm not sure what it is. And it does.

That's where I say my disposition toward that young earth explanation is to say I'm not sure that's any more possible than the possibility I threw out before where I said he could make it 5 minutes ago with false memories and the appearance of age. Well, I'm not sure that's actually true because that would clearly be a mode of deception. Me having false memories and all of that would be a mode of deceiving me about my own existence. And I'm not convinced that that's in keeping with the character of God. And so while I can sit here and say, well, that seems to be contradiction free. Well, it might be it it might actually fall in contradiction when paired with God doing it. Yes.

Which is the thing that matters here. And so maybe maybe it's possible, you know, maybe it's not. Um, and so I have to admit that there's a certain part of me that when I consider the fact that Young Earth requires as a position that God has planted all sorts of breadcrumbs throughout the cosmos that will mislead us. Um, you know, that's where I go. I'm not sure if this is actually a coherent position. No, I I get that. I I one of the things that comes to mind is though what if it is uh beckoning science to consider something like rapid expansion of the universe or something like that where okay the word is trying to say that it may be shorter than you think it is.

Maybe we should look at that scientifically to see if that's possible. You know so it is in in a sense if you have a high view of scripture going to guide the inquiry but it's an open inquiry. It's it's where we now look at the evidence and see is that possible and is science taking is science being dogmatic and saying it's impossible.

Well, so this is this is an area where again I think I don't have a problem with non-dogmatic the the way you frame that for example right it was non-dogmatic you didn't say in your framing that it's 6500 years old you said maybe maybe some of these things you know he creates the intermediate light between the stars and here or whatever so that induction I'm entirely open to that possibility right right um But but the thing but the thing is that's framed tentatively. Right. Right. And I don't mind tenative hypotheses that say, "Well, hold on. You're talking like there's only one way this could be accounted for." And there is more than one way to account for this. I think that's great. Happy with that.

Right. Um when people raise, for example, this is a thing that's commonly raised in orthodox circles. I think largely because of the influence of Saraphim Rose um is because you know is to say like well well physics functioned differently before the fall. Okay. And that doesn't actually tell me anything. It doesn't answer any questions right but you know am I open a line of inquiry? Yeah. Yeah. Am I open to the possibility that says, well, look, one of the challenges is that science uh treats the cosmos like there's no change that ever takes place in it in terms of moving toward corruption. This the way it is now is the way it's always been. Okay. Uh fair question, right?

Again, like this goes to certain underlying assumptions which science inevitably has to do, right? science actually can't wind back the clock. And so it's going to have to, you know, if you're talking about like carbon dating or something like that, of course, it's going to have to take certain presumptions about a consistent, you know, mode of degeneration in order to do the math in the first place. Could that be faulty? Sure, could be faulty, right? Is it is it anathema to suggest that it could be faulty? No, I don't think so. I think it's perfectly fine. But there's a world of a difference between saying, "Now hold on, we could account for this in this way.

That's not necessarily as sure as you're presenting it, Mr. Science." Right? That's fine. I have no objection to anything like that. Um but uh it's the dogmatism of it where suddenly uh where suddenly what the scientist is saying is actually anathema, right? Um that that I run into to issues with it. Well, that I I think one of the things I'm hearing that I frankly I agree with is that you don't want to let the essentials of the creeds and confessions of the faith take a back seat because you've been dogmatic in how you've approached, you know, an issue that is still an open question, something that human beings are still, you know, working on as it were.

And so when I when I hear people sort of lay those things down, they become an affront to the gospel. you know, they they they don't allow its reception. They don't even give you a seat at the table in the contemporary discussion. Sure. Because you're because you've been so um yeah, just dogmatic about that issue. And so I think that's something that has been on my heart in this issue is is just giving us space to breathe, to talk, to have the opportunity to sort of listen to the scientists, listen to the scriptures, and uh and and find a way forward.

And if I'm hearing you correctly, you've already got a category in the uh in the in the church fathers that yeah is wide open to that kind of discourse, right? Um and it's healthy for the species to live in that space because we're seeking after the truth. We we're not God. We don't know for sure. Yeah. Um but God's word speaks. It gives us direction. It sheds lights, a lamp unto our feet, a light unto our path. And it is um um you know worth pursuing this question in earnest. Yeah. Well and I and now of course there like I said there are some people um in the Orthodox camp.

I don't know how big it is truthfully um but you know very vocal contingent within the Orthodox world that are strong young earthers. Okay. And very vocal about that fact. And so a lot of them all former Protestants I understand. Well, it does seem to be a secondary trait of them, but but um but yeah, and and and so many of them would of course contest my entire contention. Not that there is this category of the lagguminon. Um I think most of them are probably aware of that. I would guess I I I think that's relatively ubiquitous. There's certainly some issues on which they would find affinity. But they would they would contest that the age of the earth is one such thing.

Uh but this goes into a sort of inside baseball I'd say with orthodoxy and how how the fathers are treated which I think is worth talking about but I don't know if that's where you want to go right now. Yeah. No, I'm that's Well, I I'm I want to be grounded in that um in that podcast that you did u regarding evolution because I know you're going to be coming out with another one, right, on whether or not evolution is acceptable in a sense within the church confines. Very eager to see. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there eager to see how you're going to handle that topic. I'm not sure how many people are aware that I didn't address that question.

And so this is actually another thing that's very interesting is so much of the reaction seem to be so knee-jerk in the sense that the presumption is if you say you don't have to be young earth, right? You're saying evolution is true, everything they immediately sort of thrust you into that where we started with like here's the two extremes. Yes. Uh on this position, if you're not with us, you're over in that other far-flung camp. And um and the funny thing is not only am I not if people have read me on this topic on my Substack on theologicals.com uh I went ahead and I did publish two pieces on this where I make clear my position on evolution and spoiler alert.

I'm not an evolutionist. Oh wow. Okay. Um you first right here not if you read theological letters but you heard it. Yes. That's right. Um, and so and so, but yes, but that was one of the things that so many of the comments, so much of the response to that video was, I can't believe you would defend evolution. Yes. Right. And it's like I wasn't. In fact, in fact, in the opening of the video, I said there's two very different questions. Perhaps you remember this. Whereas like there's the question of whether or not these sort of typical objections, which are usually from a Protestant camp, hold water with the Eastern fathers. Yes. And then there's a different question about whether or not evolution is true.

Right? And my whole thing was just saying, do they hold water with the eastern fathers? Are these really a defeater that given these considerations, nobody who looks to the eastern fathers for guidance could possibly ever affirm evolution? And my conclusion was no. And that that's what caused some people's hair to light on fire. But I think this goes to I know it's a shock for most well at least it was a shock for me. Maybe not for other people, but it was a shock for me to discover that the internet lacks nuance. Yes.

And so one of the things that, you know, I as a philosopher, you as a philosopher, we're familiar with is the ways in which philosophers will often times uh approach an objection and disarm an objection by showing exactly what we've talked about with science, right? that the dogmatic conclusion from the subjection actually doesn't follow right and yet when dismantling it in that way we're not actually saying that the mode we've used to dismantle it is true now that's probably sounds very abstract so I'll give you a couple of examples um from Alvin Planaga who is an analytic philosopher um who is known for doing this in a couple of different areas right so uh for example and his dealings with the problem of evil Right.

There's his transworld depravity argument. And what this is is he's doing something basically quasi molanistic. My understanding is Planet didn't really know what mullanism was at the time. And he was sort of he was just doing modal logic, contemporary modal logic. And then somebody pointed out to him, it sounds like mullenism. He's like, oh yeah, that sounds like a pretty good thing. But um but basically uh for for folks unfamiliar with contemporary modal logic which is probably a lot it deals in possible worlds. So if we say that there's a possible if we say that it's possible for Chris to come to Nashville and do this podcast and we say that it's possible for Chris to not come to Nashville and do this podcast then we've said there's two possible worlds.

A possible world where we're here doing this and a possible world where we're not. Now that doesn't mean that those ex worlds all exist and they float side by side. It's just saying that logically that's the ramification of it, right? Um is that both are describing possible states of affairs, right? And so one of the things that Plano does is he goes through um the free a free will defense, right? talking about the nature of free will and and the possibility that not even God can determine a free creature to do the thing that he wants it to do. Um because it is self-determining and free.

And after he moves through his free will defense, he shows that one of the one of the ramifications is that it is possible possible that every possible world involves creatures choosing sin. Now that wouldn't mean that it's logically necessary that creatures choose sin but it's just possible that in every possible state of affairs some creature chooses sin and the world falls. Now the reason Planinga does that is because part of the objection, one of the many objections of the context of the problem of evil is somebody saying, "Well, God should have created a world without sin." And Planinga is saying, "Well, if it's possible that every possible world involves sin, then that's not possible even for God." Yes.

And therefore, the indictment of God that he should have made a world without sin falls apart because he can't make a world without sin. Right. Yes. Now to a philosopher like you and me who's more nuanced in our thinking about these sorts of things, we recognize Planaga hasn't said the transorld depravity is true. Right. Right. His point is merely to say since it's possible the objection fails. Yes. Right. And he's not making any commitments of his own. It's always been the brilliance of Planaga. That's his contribution as it were. Right. And a a similar one that is a little closer to home here for what we're talking about is his uh argument against naturalistic evolution.

Uh and this is basically where the short version of the argument is essentially to say that um if I'm going to take the position as an atheist, right, that my faculties are not designed, they are the product of processes aimed at survival. Yes. Well, we run into a problem because survival and truthtelling are not always aligned. That's right. And so for that reason, I I actually have reason to suspect that my faculties might not be telling me true things about the world. Why? Well, because they're not aimed at truthtelling. They're aimed at survival.

And that creates a problem because if my faculties are the reason I believe in evolution but I can't trust my faculties I am now in a self selfally incoherent position right and so for this reason pling suggests that only a theist could coherently believe in evolution why well because the theist can say I believe evolution is a mechanism God's using to bring about a certain type of world and god wants humans to have faculties aimed at truth telling telling them true things about the world and so God can engineer that process in a way.

So now the theist actually can trust their faculties and believe in which is an extraordinary outcome to his argument because now if you're going to be a evolutionary theorist you have to be a theist. Yeah. Now I'm sure that the same people who reacted to me um would react to planning and say I can't believe you're defending evolution. I can't I can't believe you would affirm evolution. Right. But again as you're talking about possible worlds you're not talking about actuality. And that's the thing is that Planting's argument makes no statement on whether evolution is true or false or whether he believes it. And he doesn't need it. He's merely pointing out, hey, evolutionist who's an atheist, you've got a real problem. Yes.

And if you want to hold to that position, you would have to move over to my camp of theism. Yes. That's all the argument is saying. He's not making any comments about evolution itself. And similarly with me, right? Right. I was sitting here in this in this in this context doing a similar sort of thing just saying well do these typical objections hold water with the eastern fathers such that if I believe the eastern fathers I have to believe these objections and my point was no right now I didn't say therefore the fathers affirm evolution I mean this probably should go without saying but they don't even know what evolution is because Darwin's or on the origin of species wasn't published in the petristic era Um, so you're not going to find anything for or against it in the fathers.

Uh, but uh, but you know, I'm I'm not sitting here saying therefore their old earth. Uh, in fact, I said explicitly in the video, I said, now does this mean that all of them believe that the earth is exceptionally old? And I actually said no. The majority of them clearly think that it's quite young. Um but again this is because I think a lot of people are unfamiliar with this thing that philosophers do all the time which is to say I'm looking at an objection. Yes. Or at a position and I'm just asking a question of whether it naturally follows whether it can be defeated. Yes. Uh and things like that.

And that's different than answering the question of whe you know what I think is true about this topic. Well that's why when I listened to that particular podcast I didn't have a knee-jerk reaction against it. I saw it as a preface, a prolamina to a discussion that where you're building out categories of understanding like what does death mean? What does corruption mean? And what happens to a philosophically minded Christian like myself is that's liberating. It's not liberating because I'm accepting it as truth per se, but it's giving me mental categories for me to begin to have a more nuanced understanding of, you know, the primordial world, right?

And and that that is super helpful because there's anybody I think who's honest on this issue is that there's a there's a myriad of potential contradictions in it and I oscillate between them when I'm focused on one thing. you know, and I'm like, how do I h there's got to be better categories for this. And so, when I was listening to you make those distinctions with regards to whether or not animals, you know, died in a sense before uh human sin entered the world and all of that. Um, I was like, man, those are fascinating. And they and they actually begin to help me think more creatively about the possibilities for a coherent understanding of that transition. Mhm. That should be a liberating thing.

It should be something that says, "Okay, Jacob's gave us four. Maybe there's six. You know, maybe I I maybe if I thought it through, I you know, he's not only helpful, but it's a prompt for further conversation to lead us towards the truth, right? Um, but I guess online that wasn't how a number of these folks received it. It was like once you've left the camp of the young earth and a certain dogma, you are now in an inevitable slide towards being, you know, a scientific naturalist evolutionist. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm like, "No, it's a helpful thing for us to begin to discuss and give us categories to be truly Christian in how we approach the issues of science and religion." Yeah.

Well, and I think I think one of the things that gets touched on here, there's inevitably, as you know, there's going to be differences in how an Orthodox person approaches theology and how an evangelical just given, you know, the fact that an orthodox person is going to say, "Look, I believe that the church, you know, that Christ has led the church into all truth. I believe that it's the keeper of the faith. I believe with that there are these church fathers we look to who guide us in those sorts of things. It's not just going to be a soloscriptor type thing.

Um, and yet I think there's a similar issue that emerges on both sides related to this that's a little sensitive, but I think it's really important to talk about. Many of the folks who sort of kneejerk uh against the sort of thing that I was doing, they immediately say this saint thinks the world is young. This saint thinks the world is young. This saint rejects evolution, right? and they start to sort of uh marshall out a series of saints who think that the world is young or you know and and very few you're going to have to go to very contemporary saints in order to find people who are explicitly rejecting evolution.

Um, so that group is much smaller, but you know, in terms of the church fathers, which is what I'm talking about, and you know, you you end up having people marshall out, well, Ambrose, you know, is on record as saying saying the world is only this old or Augustine is on record as saying the world is only this old or whatever it might be. and you start to sort of marshall out uh these figures in order to say look I've got I've got five guys here who say this explicitly. So that's a consensus of the church fathers.

Um and and I think fallacy of composition well I think this is I mean look it's relevant within orthodoxy to say what is the consensus of the fathers. We do we do tend in that direction as I said with now I think a lot of people will sometimes lose the distinction between orthodoxy heresy and theologumina um and so sometimes they will take a majority position to mean it's orthodoxy and that's not always that doesn't always follow as I talked about that's the whole point of that middle ground so there is there is relevance within orthodox circles to looking at what is the consensus of the fathers and and yet you have to also ask this other question of, you know, whether or not it's dogma or it's theological opinion.

Um, but I think there's another thing in here which is a little more uncomfortable for people, but and but I think it needs to be looked at and I think there's an analog in in Protestantism for this. And I would say that there's a question you need to draw a distinction or raise the question of basically substantative consensus and nonsubstantive consensus. Now these are my categories right that I'm using here for this but let's just use an example right if I can marshall out a series of petristic texts that show that the fathers the consensus of the fathers is a faulty view of optics right how your eyes work do I have to hold that is that a substantative consensus and incidentally I can do that that's why I use that example.

So one of the things that was there in the day in terms of optics was there was this view that like recognizes like right and so the presumption was there must be some sort of light in your eye that ends up recognizing light outside of your eye. Right? And because so many of the church fathers were elementalists believing things which was common in the day that all things are composed of the four elements. Well, fire is the element from which light comes. And so they believe that your eye must be filled with a subtle fire that actually shoots out of your eyes and then finds the other light that's out there from that element and returns that information. Okay.

Um, if I can marshall out a bunch of texts that show that several fathers think that because that was the view of optics in the day, am I bound to think that? Is that a substantive consensus or is that them as just products of their era presuming certain things that are false because that's what the science of the day is saying? Now, the reason I say that, that's an important question to ask, right? um what is a consensus I'm bound to, you know, and what is one that I'm not. Now, the reason I think that's also important to ask for a Protestant is that it's not just the church fathers in the way that, you know, you think of that term. I would consider St. Paul a church father, right?

Uh but St. Paul is also subject to this. So, I'll give you an example, the body of Christ metaphor. Right. Right. Paul says a lot of things in there about all things being attached at the head and being nourished from that. Yes. Well, that's actually because he adopts the Alexandrian view of anatomy, which is that quite literally the bodily organs are all attached at the head and the head provides the head provides vital nutrients that disperse throughout the body. Now, that's anatomically false, but Paul takes that and presumes it to be true because it's the science of the day and uses it to explain a theological truth. Yes.

So this becomes an uncomfortable space because what you're raising the question of is saying well if everything that Paul says is true right because I believe in the infallibility of scripture do I have to actually hold to this older view of anatomy or am I able to say that the truth that Paul is telling me is theological. He's telling me a theological truth about the headship of Christ and us all being attached to him and us all being nurtured by him. And he's using a metaphor that is based on faulty anatomy. And that faulty anatomy doesn't devalue the theological truth because the theological truth is the infallible thing being asserted.

Yes, that sort of nuance balancing act is something that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. But it's supremely relevant. Yes. Because it's relevant to the church fathers as well. I can marshall out a lot of things that the church fathers hold that are false. Yes. Geocentrism, right? They are probably geocentrist. They probably think that the world is the that the earth is the center of the cosmos. That I can I can and and so we can we could marshall that out as a consensus of the fathers. Now, do we all of a sudden have to all be geocentrics? Right. Right. Well, the thing is there's a certain theological sense in which geocentrism is true. Right.

If you're going to say that the culmination of God's creative activity is here on earth and that man is this sort of centerpiece that's going to be the focus of, you know, the deification of the organic world and part of the and the incarnation is going to involve man and things like that. We can speak theologically about geocentrism being true. Yes. But if we're speaking purely spatially about is it the thing that everything evol revolves around spatially it's false. Yeah. Right. And that sort of uncomfortable balancing act is something that's there in Paul and it's there in the fathers.

And I dare say it may be there in Genesis, right? where it may well be that Genesis is allowing God is allowing faulty understandings of the cosmos to stand. He's not correcting those because he's not interested in correcting those. He's interested in correcting their theology. Yes. And teaching them true theological things. But I think that's a space that gets people really uncomfortable. Yes. Well, I I do think that in the evangelical world with a, you know, infallible and even inherent view of scripture, what there what what we want to say is that it must not mean in the case of Paul that there's an anatomy being projected here.

He may be using a metaphor that he's familiar with, but it's not an it's not projecting false information. It is a guidance unto the faith and life and that there's something anatomically true. It is in fact as you had put in our previous uh conversation a body and a body that is connected. There's some kind of relationship between the head, the heart and the rest of the organisms. Um may maybe he does have some kind of Aristotilian understanding of that or it's actually not Aristotilian. It's the Alexandrian Aristotle thought the heart was actually where everything Okay. Right. But uh but I guess I guess the point is is that you know um that um it's true in everything it's intending to utter, right?

And and so what what is it intending to teach us? Well, whatever it is, historical or scientific, it's true. But what is it that it's intending to utter? Yeah. So, this gets into that that area that I think needs to be said, but is really, I think, uncomfortable for a lot of people. Um, it's not uncomfortable for me. I'm perfectly comfortable with it, but I can tell that it's uncomfortable for a lot of people. Yes. Um, I can marshall forward consensus of the fathers that are false. And I gave an example, geocentrism, right? their view of optics. Um they also think that the planets move in perfect circular motions. They don't. Now why do they think that right?

Well the answer is not actually because of the Bible. The answer is because like Paul they accepted the Alexandrian view of the day. Yes. And so and by they I'll give examples. Gregory of Nissa Gregory of Nazanzis Basil of Cesaria John Chrysum John of Damascus. Usually in orthodox circles, if you can marshall out those those guys, you've got consensus of the it's over. We're Yeah, we're at dogma, right? Um we're at an orthodoxy and you know, so so do I need to accept, you know, what was that based on? The Alexandrian school, Aristotle and Tommy. That's what it's based on. Now what's interesting there is that that means that tells us that just like Paul, they just accepted the science of the day.

And so this is one of the things that's interesting. I get the impression that sometimes within orthodox circles uh people will talk like the orthodox mind is that you reject philosophy and you reject science for some sort of revealed something, right? Revealed science. I don't know if it's revealed science, right? But you you do that sort of thing and that's the orthodox mind. That's the orthodox fima, right? Yes. Uh the orthodox mind.

Um but but the thing is if that's the orthodox mind then Basil of Cesaria Gregory of Nissa Gregory and Aziansis John Chrysum and John of Damascus never got the memo because their orthodox mind just accepted the science of the day and so if they're doing metaphors right with Gregory of Nissa decides that he's going to you know do some sort of analogy or metaphor using optics Well, he's just going to go with the optics of the day. Just like Paul when he's going to make a body metaphor, he's like, "Ah, yeah, this anatomical thing works really well to make my theological point." But what's being say stated that's dogmatic is the theology, not the optics.

What's being stated that's dogmatic is the body, the theology of that body, not the anatomy. Right? And so in the same way and and it's interesting to me that Basil of Cesaria himself even notes this. So in his hexamon where he's doing this commentary in Genesis and this is one of the places where a lot of people will go and it's also one of the places where you can find some of these faulty ideas. He says at some point that we leave the how of how God did this to those outside the church. I believe it says that twice. Wow.

Um and and so it's interesting that Basil's own position while he's sitting here and he's expositing all these sort of theological truths and he's he's doing his thing in terms of creation. A lot of the science he's just sort of deferring to the science of the day. That's why it's showing up in there. And why is he doing that? Because we leave the how to those who debate those things outside. So he's not he's not saying that we leave it to the heathens. we leave it to a discussion that has different principles and and guiding guiding features that search into these things. Um well, in some ways what he's doing is he's he's pointing out the very difference that I made before.

If you're talking about the body in an biological sense, we are now talking about a how it works, right? The theology sense is the stuff that Paul's talking about, right? And so if the the science about the how breaks down, that doesn't invalidate the analogy. Yes. Right. Uh and and because the the point of the analogy is the theological truths that still hold. And that's actually what Basil is talking about is that he actually talks about the fact that what's important is that we remember that God did it. Yes. Right. How he did it, we leave to those on the outside. And he acknowledges all these different debates. Yes. About this sort of thing. and reflective of his own disposition.

He tends to just sort of adopt or presume certain things that are taken to be scientifically true at the time uh that are faulty. And I think that's an important thing to recognize is that that that when it comes to these questions about, you know, about biology or geology, you know, or astronomy, we are now actually in a discipline that's outside of theology. Uh, not to say that theology is utterly irrelevant to it, but as Basil said, that's that's something outside the church. And here's what I would say that's really important. Let me make just two quick points on this. The first is that when it comes to the church fathers, I do I believe that they are the keepers of truth.

My answer is yes, I do. But what truth? And the truth that they are keepers of is what the ecumenical council state. the faith once given over to the saints. They're keepers of the truths of the faith, not of astronomy, not of geology, not of optics. Right? And the second thing I would point out is this shouldn't be shocking to people. Um I have encountered people in orthodox circles who seem to think that the church fathers are omnisient, right? That somehow because they're saints that God has revealed all truth to them. full stop. And so, so if this is true, how come he didn't reveal that to them?

But the thing I find so strange about that is first of all, the very fact that we have theological opinion as a category means they're not omnisient. Um, but this the second thing that I think that's really strange about it is let's just think about it from a theological perspective. Paul talks about different spiritual gifts. Not every saint is a healer or a prophet or a teacher. They're all different. We're a scientist. And yet they're all astronomers. So they're not all prophets, not all healers. They don't have all the spiritual gifts, but they do have all the scientific gifts. And that's the thing where I go, that's a very strange position. On the surface of it, it should be obvious.

If they're not all teachers, they're not all prophets, they're not all healers. Surely they're not all astronomers. Well, there are there are evangelicals. I you I think of John Woodbridge and others who want to however say if you draw a sharp distinction between the faith once it's delivered to the saints and science and history does are is there is there no light shed on these matters from the faiths are there implications that are required for for history for science or are they just tight lipped and really don't have anything to say on I don't think you want to hold that, but what you know, how does that work? How how does that shed some light even in areas of history and science? Yeah.

So, here here is I'll I'll say a couple of different things. Uh first of all, I wouldn't lump history and science together, right? Because I think the Bible and theology is talking about history. Yes. Now, I think I will say on this one that the way theology approaches history is different than the way a pure historian does. And let me make an analogy here. It's the difference between how I, as a script writer, write about a historical event versus how a documentarian does. Right? And here's the reason. If I'm going to tell you a story, let's say I'm going to tell you my own story, which I've done any number of times. I did it in Becoming Truly Human.

And I've done it in my essay for Turning East 2. Um, I've had to tell that story, right? And one of the things I actually point out in the Turning East 2 essay, I come I circle back to a thing and I bring it in at the end of the essay, but I point out that when you're weaving a story, even though the reality of it on the ground is messy and shooting in all sorts of different directions and side trails and all these different factors, once you start to tell the story, you have to narrow the scope of it, right? You have to be selective. You have to edit out. You have to condense time, right?

Because you're drawing a cause and effect relationship to unfold a certain story. Now, does that mean that what I've said about my story is false? No. Right. Um, it just means that I'm I'm telling you the story of it, right? I'm having to edit out and draw the through line for you. Yes. which is going to be different than if we just put together a documentary. We just had cameras running all the time and then we're going to go through and we're going to try to edit together in a way that keeps all the different pieces there in all the different ways that they showed up and so on. Those are two very different things.

And historians tend to be just just just the facts, man. Just the facts, right? That that's how documentarians and historians tend to be. Yes. Um whereas that's not the sort of history that the Bible is doing. It is interested in the number of people or the number of generations for symbolic reasons. Right? These things are meaningful. It's very clear in Luke's uh you know genealogies for example that the number of generations is important to him. Right? Uh so there is symbology there. Um, you'll notice that within the gospels, the order of events isn't always the same. And the reason is because they're telling a different version of the story. Now, does that fact suddenly invalidate the truth of it? No, it doesn't.

Uh, it just means that when Mark is telling the story, he's telling it from this certain through line thematically. Yes. And these events in this order, you know, are going to be the more important ones. what he's going to edit out is going to be different than what John would edit out or include because John's taking a different approach in how he's telling the story. But both know the history of it. Both know the truth of it. And these are different versions of the same story that are both true. Yes. Right. But that's the nature of storytelling. Right. And storytelling doesn't mean false, right?

It means they're telling you true events, but they're having to put it together in a narrative structure that makes sense to you. Yes. And speaking as a script writer, I can tell you that's not an easy task when you've got just a bunch of history laid out. Yes. Trying to figure out the best way to put this into a coherent story that has an arc to it, that has themes to it, it's a lot of work and it requires a lot of editing and things like that. Um, and and I think the thing is when you look at the Bible, clearly the Bible, and I don't think anyone would contest this, is trying to say something. Yes.

It's not just recording a series of historical facts, right? That's dispassionate like do with it what you will, right? It is weaving a narrative here. And so for that reason, inevitably it has to do that. And so I think it's I think that has to be acknowledged that the type of pure history where I'm just cataloging facts, right, is very different than the type of history that the Bible is doing. And yet that doesn't mean that the Bible is being false in what it's saying. And but if we bring the expectation that it's doing pure history. Yes.

And begin to try to form our interpretation of the Bible based on that expectation, it can it can warp and change and and make it into something it never intended itself to be, right? And in some ways it becomes a violation of the genre that it is. So, it's interesting within the Alexandrian School of Theology, um, they actually believed that the Bible intentionally introduces oddities and contradictions in order to make you say, "Wait a second. That doesn't make any sense. What What is it getting at?" Because it wants to push you to a deeper meaning. Yes. I'll give you an example, right? um within how Gregory of Nissa looks at uh the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, right?

If you take it on the surface of it, the very literalistic got two guys who die, they're carried off into Hades, which is a subterranean region. There's a giant gulf between them that's fixed such that no man can cross. One guy's over here, the other guy's over there. This guy's in a flame that's burning him, you know, and this is the literalistic picture that you get. But when Gregory of Nissa or St. McCrina look at that story, they say, you know, there are some oddities about this that make no sense. They first of all, they don't have bodies, but they talk about their tongues and their fingers. That's the first oddity that's in there, right?

Uh, the second oddity though is there's a great chasm so vast that no one could ever cross it, but they're talking to each other and the rich man thinks that Lazarus could just walk over and dip put water on his tongue. And that's where they immediately say, "Well, this chasm can't be literal, right? The text must want me to actually go deeper into the meaning of this." And that's where they go into the deeper meaning. This is how a lot of Alexandrian allegorical readings of the text work where they think that's on purpose so that you don't read it literally and so that you ask questions of what is the gap between them and they come to the conclusion the gap between them is actually the gap between righteousness and wickedness, comfort and torment.

Yes. And that when you look at the behavior of the rich man, you see the very root of his torment. The very fact that he is so turned inward and myopic, he never once addresses Lazarus which was the primary evil identified on earth is uh he only addresses Abraham. And when he talks about Lazarus, he talks about him as a servant, right? Who should be here to serve him, right? He still sees him as less than even though now he has no wealth. Uh and and he's in torment while Lazarus is being comforted. Uh those are the sorts of insights that they say. No, no. Jesus isn't trying to teach us something about the geography of Hades.

He's trying to teach us something about the theology of Hades. And yes, there is a visual word picture going on here. But the literal visual word picture is actually false, right? That's not actually true. Yes. And so this is common within the Alexandrian school of theology. people like origin and others who came out of that Alexandrian school. That's how and and it precedes them, right? People like Pho of Alexandria, you see these same sort of allegorical approaches to the text. And yet none of them think that the what the text is telling you is false, right? Yes. They just recognize that from a genre perspective, it's saying something. It's not it's not Josephus, right? It's not sitting here just recording historical facts. Yes.

It actually is saying something. So, you can both sit here and say, "I'm going to tell the story of Chris Firestone, and I'm going to do my research and I'm going to have true things to say about Chris. I'm not fabricating something, but I still am going to have to put those true things into a story that is saying something about Chris's journey. And Chris is a human being." Well, any anybody I mean what I really appreciate about that you story insight is anybody's even attempted to tell their own story runs into a click moment where they're telling it and they go, "Yeah, that's that's deeply meaningful." The way that thread line was pulled through. I hadn't thought about it that way.

Even of my own story, I hadn't thought of it quite that way before, but now that you put it that way, yeah, I do see those connecting threads. And if I'm hearing you correctly, when you're talking about the gospels and other things, they've they they they know the doctrine, the worldview, the story of Christ and so forth, but they are attempting as it were to to pull a through line through so that people it's transferable, right? It it it speaks to something deep in our heart and um and that uh you know it's it's it's not contrary to the mind. It's actually liberating to the mind to realize it isn't a monolithic story. We have four gospels for a reason, you know.

Um, and so I I think that that's that's really helpful. So yeah, when we look if we return back if if if we can back to this whole thing about evolution, do they do um to what extent are they as you look forward to to that podcast in which you're going to be sharing your position on that? Where's the traction here? Where's it what are we to think about Nathan Jacobs and your acceptance or non-acceptance of Yeah. Well, let let me come back to that after addressing one thing because it occurs to me, you know, you brought up John Woodbridge and you talked about history and science. Yes. Right.

And that's one of those things that I think those are two very different Well, I remember him holding up wooden, you know, he's talking about Reformation and Luther and stuff and he would show these wooden panels that have etched in them pictures of creation that are 7day sort of literalist views and so forth. um that they held many of them did anyway to that that scriptures speak to science, speak to history and actually give us positive information on these things and that that needs to be considered as part of any inherency or an infallibility position. Yeah. Well, I think I think here's the thing is that what I said about history I think applies just as much to science.

So when we talk about like well is Genesis telling us theological Genesis is giving us a story. Yes. So is that story supposed to teach us something about astronomy or something like that? And I think the answer is no. Not in the way that a lot of people think. Um but there may be a certain type of a yes. So here here's one of the things that I think most ancient I mean I'm pretty sure it's it's ubiquitous in ancient near eastern studies by this point but it's recognized that Genesis is actually hearkening to a lot of other creation myths myths that the readers would have been familiar with.

And so you know for example there's these oddities in there that people look at and they're like what's what's that about? Right? like that the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the deep, right? And people are like, "Well, what does that mean?" Right? Well, the context for that is, you know, that the Hebrew word for deep, right? Um, sounds an awful lot, like the name of an ancient neareastern chaos monster, namely Tiiamat, who is part of a different creation story. And in that creation story, you have Marduk, the son of the go sky god Anu, who takes the four winds and goes down and does war with Tiiamad and fires an arrow into her gullet and then she's dead and then her dead body becomes the earth, the dry land, right?

That doesn't happen in Genesis, right? And yet, Tiiamad is alluded to specifically to say something a Jewish rabbi once said. You've heard it said, but I say to you. Right. Right. Um and um and and that's one of the things that a lot of ancient Neareastern scholars will point out is that throughout Genesis, Genesis is in many ways saying like hinting being like this thing you've heard is false, right? this thing you've heard is false. There are a couple areas where it's like this thing is true. Yes. Right. Um but it's trying to correct their theology.

So it's telling a story in a genre that's similar to stories that they they're familiar with about the origin of things um but doing it in a way that's corrective. So there's first of all that right that clearly Genesis is interested in telling a theological story. And so this is very similar to when I say I'm going to tell a story about Chris and I have to sit here and think about what I want somebody to know about Chris. Here are the relevant events and here's the through line, the story arc that I need to to weave, you know, in order to get there.

Genesis is plainly doing that in order to instruct um its readers about God and correct their faulty theology while also instructing them in how they think about man and where they are in the world and the origin of things. Right? This is a book of origins, right? And so on the one hand it's weaving a theological narrative. The other thing is and I think this is important to understand is that you know when it when you look at Genesis um one of the things that you see are these sorts of truths that as I pointed out might be theologically true but strictly speaking physically non-true the narrative is centered on the earth and that narrative culminates in the person of man. Right.

And so we could sit here and we could say the very thing that I said about geocentrism and say from the perspective of the Genesis story, it's geocentrist. Yes. Right. And at the center of the earth is the culmination of that in in man. Yes. As the center of this creation story. That's true theologically. Does it require that all things that you know spin around in space are spinning around the earth? No. Right. And those are two very different claims. And I think it's important to recognize that Genesis is making the theological claims, right? It's not speaking to the spatial claims. Yes. Uh so that's an important thing to remember.

Well, I do recall in some of your other stuff and even in our conversation last night as we stayed up talking about this that that loosens the grip, if you will, on this notion that everything is human- centered. the whole perspective through line is human. And so when we look back at the seven days, they're 24-hour literal days because that's what every human being knows about these 24 days. And it's not impossible that that's true, right? But that doesn't seem to be the intention of a theological storytelling, right?

Well, and I think this goes to the other thing which is the point of the Alexandrian school, which I think is right in in its hermeneutics and its way that it approaches the text that the text provides its own oddities. Right? So, a couple of oddities, right? You pointed out that we don't have any human beings until the end of the story, right? And so, that does raise this question of whether or not time and space and everything that we're presuming about how it moves is reflective of how humans experience it. That's a fair question, right? Because who is the primary actor? If we're talking about this narrative, right? Whose point of view is this, right?

This is the divine point of view. um everything in the acting agent throughout it is God. And so um immediately there should raise some questions when we're talking about days and things like that. We should raise the question for God. What day is is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day? That's out of the Psalms and specifically out of the only psalm that tradition attributes to Moses, the author of Genesis. Um, and so that that raises an immediate question. The fact that the sun doesn't show up for the fourth day raises and and is specifically identified as there for for marking, you know, days and times and seasons. Well, that that should raise some questions about whether we're talking about solar days.

But there's other oddities in there that certain figures like Aronyaeus point out and these are the sorts of things that come up in my my podcast like that God tells Adam the day you eat of it you're going to die right and then he goes on and lives 900 and some odd years right and that literalist that's a problem well whereas if you're an Alexandrian reader you say oh wait a second that's weird what is the text trying to get me to the text is trying to get me to go deeper on this topic. What is the ramification of that?

And I think I think one of the natural ramifications that somebody like Arena points out about this very early church father, he points out that Adam, you know, he actually appeals to a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is the day. He's recognizes that the speaker is God. Yes. And then in fact he goes on and says that the day that Christ died is the same day that Adam died. And he doesn't mean the same day of the week. He means the same day of the creation story. Right? And then he introduces the doctrine of the eighth day of creation, which is this doctrine I've talked about in the Orthodox context. I remember listening to that one.

I go, man, that's pretty cool. How come I've never heard of that before? I've got an inkling why that might be. But but now the thing is like when you look at that Arena is pointing out something quite right right here. That is that is really interesting. You're told the day you eat of it you're going to die and then he goes on 900 years. You should immediately be saying what's going on there. Maybe there's something deeper happening in the text. Yes. If you look at it right in the narrative, there's a beginning, an end, a morning, and an evening to all the days except for the seventh day, which Arya is going to go on and say doesn't reach its end until the crucifixion of Christ when the eighth day dawns with his resurrection.

Yes. Right. And so, you know, these are this is a certain way of approaching the text that says it's not disrespecting the text. It's acknowledging that the text is deep and rich and divinely inspired. Yes. And contains its own clues for why you shouldn't read it in too wooden a way. Just like you shouldn't read Christ's parable about Hades in too wooden a way. Okay. And just so listeners are clear about what you're saying here is it does it does seem like that that would be a piece of evidence that would at least give you pause on a 7-day literalist interpretation of that reading. But on the other end of the spectrum, it's not a 13 billion year old view either.

It's merely saying the scriptures are teaching us a theological point that this this seventh day is longer than you would have thought if you were in one position or another. Um and that opens discourse that opens conversation that allows science to and in and religion to dialogue harmoniously with each other rather than you know pmically sticking something in their face. Well, it says, you know, you know, the six days of creation and that's it. I I'll just say theologically, I mean, speaking for myself, this may not resonate with anyone, but there's something that instills awe in me about the possibility that for the being we're talking about, God, right, that for the Holy Trinity, 13.8 8 billion years, 6 days.

I can't even fathom a billion. 13.8 billion moves into territory that I I'm saying the words, but they're not terribly meaningful to me. Yes. But for this being well, yeah, that's six days, right? And that and I think that's also theologically relevant in certain things. One of the things that I've talked about in the problem of evil, for example, is that it's important to have this long view of the story and recognize that you're still in the creation narrative, uh, that, you know, the creation narrative stretches through all of his human history until reaching the crucifixion of Christ and then the eighth day dawns and now we're into the unfolding of the culmination of all things. And that takes a long time. But as St. Peter said, well, God's not slow as some count slowness, right?

Yes. And and I think in some ways taking this long view of God is building something that's going to be eternal, right? Yes. But that takes a long time, right? That that instills in me a certain amount of awe. I I have to admit that possibility. I look at it and I say, "Yeah, no, it it instills awe in me." So, I think we'll pause right there and next Tuesday, we'll drop part two of my interview with Chris Firestone. I'm Nathan Jacobs and this is the Nathan Jacobs podcast. The Christian East and the Christian West share the same creed, the same scriptures, and yet they are worlds apart.

The differences run deeper than Mary or icons or liturgy going to the very nature of God, the hope of salvation, and even what it means to be human. They use the same words, but their meanings could not be more different. As these two worlds collide in our contemporary culture, what's needed is a translator. I spent nearly two decades studying these two traditions, devoting myself to figures like Augustine, Aquinas, and the reformers in the West, but finding myself crossing the threshold of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And now, I'm producing a 25-part lecture series to help bridge this gap, exploring the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity.

Pre-order the series now at the lowest price that will ever be offered or support my efforts by becoming a series producer at the eastwestseries.com. That's the eastwestseries.com.