• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Creation Vs. Theistic Evolution, Can We Do A Poll Of The Reformed?

Calvinist theology has stimulated some of the greatest history changing thought and artistic and literary achievements the world has ever seen. It stimualted glorifying God in music through Bach and Handel, in art through Rembrandt and Van Gogh, in Republican Govt through Calvin and the Puritans, in literature through Shakespeare and Milton, and in business through the Puritan work ethic and capitalism commonly credited to calvinism.

Therefore, I respect the opinion of calvinist's very much and I was wondering what calvinists believe about the orgin of life. Is it possible to start with this forum and do a poll of the "reformed only" as to whether the believe in creationism (young earth) of theistic evolution (old earth).

I'm not sure how to do those polls where you can just click and vote or who can do them but I thought it would be very interesting.
 

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
1st- as a matter of definitions
old earth creationists does not equal theistic evolution.

from: http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/week6.html
which i think is one of the best spectrum lists

but asking the question in a particular way poses a certain set of answers.
1.better is to ask how to interpret Gen 1
for instance i use Kline's framework interpretation
2.then ask how old the earth is.....i am OE
3.then ask something about how to interpret Adam
i am historical and two adams theory.
4.then ask if humans are related by descent to the great apes or a special creation. this distinquishes OEC from any type of TE
i'm TE
5.then ask how God is related to evolution.
i am a providential evolutionist......
6. lastly ask something about the need for God's intervention at the beginning of life, is abiogenesis to be expected naturally?

then you actually have enough info to pigeonhole into one of the above categories. ... i'm 4a
 
Upvote 0
Gabriel said:
Young Earth.

Lay out the choices you would like and I'll add a poll.
Ok the poll will only be opened to reformed/calvinist's and let's just make it as simple as Genesis does:

The poll will say:

Do you believe God created all in six literal days, man did not descend from an ape, and the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unsure
 
Upvote 0

Beoga

Sola Scriptura
Feb 2, 2004
3,362
225
Visit site
✟27,181.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
yes... and a qoute from one of my favorite authors/pastors that i actually just read today.
"And just as a footnote to that; if God used any kind of evolution to create, evolution is dependent on decay and death, all effects or reflections of evil. So if God used any kind of evolution to create, then God authored evil; He created decay and He created death. And if God used any form of evolution, then His creation was not all good; it was not perfect when he created it, and it is what it is now because of decay and death, which He must have used in his creation, which are evidences of evil, then God must himself be evil. But God is not evil. God is all good and only good."
-John MacArthur
 
Upvote 0
Great Point!
 
Upvote 0

Gabriel

I Once Was Lost, But Now Am Found
Oct 10, 2002
2,923
107
55
FL
Visit site
✟26,559.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
If anyone is interested in the issues revolving around creation-evolution-design, i've been working on them for about 18 months. Most of my studies are available via: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

the topic has been moved to the backburner for me with the need to study Calvin's Institutes but it is still an important issue personally.
 
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Did plants die when they were eaten by Adam and Eve and the animals?

peace,
Andy
 
Upvote 0
theFijian said:
Did plants die when they were eaten by Adam and Eve and the animals?

peace,
Andy
"Genesis 1:29-30 makes it obvious that originally, animals and man were vegetarian. Some would say therefore that plants died before sin. However, the Bible in Genesis 1 makes it clear that animals and man have a 'nephesh'-that is, a 'life spirit,' or soul. Plants do not have this. Plants were given for food-they are not living in the same sense that animals are. Man was told he could eat animals after the Flood in Genesis 9:3. Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 make it clear that death came into the world because of sin."

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20010713_49.asp
 
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Animals have a soul?

Andy
 
Upvote 0
theFijian said:
Animals have a soul?

Andy
The English word “soul” derives from a number of different words in the Old and New Testaments and is used in the Bible in a variety of ways. First, it is employed as a synonym for a living, breathing person. Moses wrote: “All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls” (Exodus 1:5; cf. Deuteronomy 10:22). In legal matters also, the word soul was used to denote any individual. The Lord told Moses: “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done’ ” (Leviticus 4:2). When Jacob was speaking of himself in Genesis 49:6, he used the expression, “O my soul”—which meant simply “me.” In each of these instances, actual people—individually or collectively—were under discussion.


Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death. In their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs noted that the word “soul” (Hebrew nephesh) often is employed to mean “life principle” (1907, p. 659). In Genesis 1:20,24,30, God spoke of the nephesh hayyah—literally “soul breathers” or “life breathers” (often translated as “living creatures” or “life”—cf. Leviticus 11:10). The writer of Proverbs observed in regard to animals: “A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (12:10). Hebrew scholar Hugo McCord therefore suggested:


Then the translators realized that the first meaning of nephesh is “breath,” and so Genesis 1:20,24,30 and Genesis 2:7 all fit together in understanding Moses as saying that all animals and man too are breathers. Breathers, coupled with hayyah, “living,” the translators thought, would be well translated, in the case of animals, as “living creatures,” and in the case of man as a “living being” (1995, 23[1]:87-88).​

Third, the word soul can be used to describe something that is immortal and thus never dies. In speaking of Rachel’s death at the birth of her son, Moses wrote: “And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died)” (Genesis 35:18). While Elijah was at the house of a widow in the city of Zarephath, the woman’s son died. But Elijah “cried unto Jehovah, and said..., ‘O Jehovah my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again’” (1 Kings 17:21). Hezekiah celebrated the fact that the soul survives the death of the body: “But thou hast in love to my soul (nephesh) delivered it from the pit of corruption” (Isaiah 38:17).

The question therefore becomes: Can the word “soul” be used correctly in referring to animals? The first definition obviously cannot apply to animals since animals are not persons. But the second definition most certainly would apply to animals. Compare the following passages. In Psalm 78:50 we find an example of the usage of “soul” as “life” when the writer said in speaking of the people of Egypt (who tried in vain to prevent the Israelites from leaving their country’s slavery) that God “spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence.” In this instance, the word “soul” (Hebrew nephesh) is used to denote the physical life of humans. But in Genesis 1:20,24, the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as “living creatures” (Hebrew nephesh hayyah). In this sense, then, yes, it is correct to say that animals have “souls”—since the word soul means only physical life. In responding to the question, “Do animals have souls?,” McCord wrote: “Yes, when the word soul, nephesh, only means ‘breath,’ as in Genesis 1:20 ([size=-1]ASV[/size]), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,’ nephesh hayyah, literally, ‘living soul’” (1999).

Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/

But plants are not referred to in Scripture as having nephesh. This distinquishes them from the life given to humans and animals, therefore they do not "die" as humans and animals do.

Therefore to answer you question, no plants did not die when they were eaten by Adam and Eve as Scripture defines life and death. Sin resulted in the death for only those to whom He gave nephesh or breath.
 
Upvote 0