Death before the fall

[crawfish]

One of the key concepts of YEC - that is, that there could not be death before the fall of Adam - has always seemed untenable to me. Many times, I've been in discussions over origins, and presenting information that is not being countered, when my entire argument will be dismissed by saying something along the lines of "evolution requires death before the fall of Adam, and that would destroy the very basis of Christian faith". This is a troubling statement because, as far as I can see, scripture does not support this idea.

I was going over this with a friend and compiled a list of the results of the study of verses that I've seen YEC's use to support this idea, and have attempted to explain why they just don't work. I think it's pretty obvious. I have tried to be comprehensive (by reading about a half-dozen articles on the subject from AIG, ICR and other sources), but please let me know if I missed something.

My question to YEC's is: why am I wrong in my assessment, and if I am not wrong (or have a strong point), what does that mean to YEC theology?

1) If death did not exist before Adam's sin, then God's threat of death would have no teeth. Adam needed to understand death before he understood the consequences of sin.

2) The Tree of Life makes absolutely no sense in a garden where no creature could die.

3) When Adam sinned, he did NOT physically die that day as might have been implied from God's warning in verse 17. However, Adam's spiritual death did occur that day when he was separated from God. Thus, God's warning has to primarily indicate a spiritual death.

4) In Genesis 3:17-19, it is important to understand that Adam is never cursed. Instead, the ground is cursed and increases his labor and toil in bringing forth food. The rest of the curse reads, paraphrased: "you will work the land from the day you are born until the day you die". This is not a statement of curse; this is a statement of fact. God is not condeming Adam to death here; he is condeming him to hard labor.

5) In Genesis 3:22, God prevents Adam from eating from the Tree of Life. It is stated that if he does, Adam will live forever. The clear implication here, in light of what is read above: Adam's sin was not the ultimate cause of physical death, his separation from the Tree of Life was! True, sin was the indirect cause of physical death because it led to separation from the Tree of Life; however, Adam's "clock did not start ticking" when he ate the fruit. It was already ticking and had always been ticking.

6) Genesis 1:29 is considered a command to all creatures to eat only plants. However, the text does not read as a command; it reads as a gift. Plants are being given as food, but there are no restrictions on eating meat. The text is setting up the "circle of life", where animals are placed above plants, and it is wrong to read this as an absolute command. Nature also strongly indicates this as well - there are carniverous animals who are built to eat meat, and many whose digestive systems cannot process plants. Now, we might suggest that the fall brought around a fundamental change that caused the change of some animals into a carniverous diet, but that would conflict with basic YEC belief.

7) Genesis 1:31 is always used to justify the absence of death before the fall. After all, if God is creating a place for Him to rule, and he called it "very good", then wouldn't it be perfect in every way? Problem is, the text "very good" does not imply physical perfection. It implies "apt-ness". God is saying that the creation is apt for His purposes, but the ultimate purpose of THIS creation is never revealed (I understand the arguments from Revelation, but won't address them here).

8) Isaiah 65:25 is often used to justify the absence of carnivores before the fall. "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox...". This is viewed as a prophecy of a future of the perfection of heaven; and heaven is what our earth was before the fall. On first blush, it makes sense and seems to be a strong argument, but a contextual view makes this idea invalid. For in the same prophecy just a few verses ahead (20), you read "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought to be a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered occursed". Wait a minute! If this verse is speaking of the upcoming wonders of heaven, then is it implying that our days in heaven are numbered?!? Because that would conflict with other parts of scripture, I will say "no", although discussion of what the passage actually means is beyond the scope of this email.

9) Now, the meat of the discussion: Romans 5:12-21. This is usually viewed as the ace in the hole for the death argument. But taking in mind my point in (3) above, consider this: Paul is drawing a comparison between Adam and Christ (the new Adam). "Just as sin and death entered the world through one man" is matched by "so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men". Adam's sin brought death, but God's grace through Jesus' sacrifice brings life. Let me ask you: are you going to die physically? No matter how much God blesses each of us, we will one day physically die. Eternal life through Christ is a spiritual life that comes through resurrection. Although the text *can* indicate both physical and spiritual death as it does not call out one or the other specifically, through the information above it would appear to be more correct to conclude that Paul is speaking of a spiritual death, or the separation from God which Christ restored through His sacrifice.

10) 1 Corinthians 15:20-26. This verse seems to be even more of a slam-dunk that the passage in Romans. After all, Paul is arguing that Christ had a real, physical resurrection, and through that fact we can know that we will also be raised. However, you get the same problem as before in that all men, even those who belong to God, will physically die. Verse 22 assures us of the same thing that Romans 5 does; that Adam's sin brought separation from God, but Christ's sacrifice and triumph over that spiritual separation through his resurrection means that we will inherit eternal life. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" - when all of God's enemies have been thrown down, there will be no more separation from God. Physical and spiritual will both be co-existence with God for all eternity.

 

[Papias]

11) What did Adam, Eve, and the other animals eat before the fall? Any food requires death - either the death of plants or animals.

12) insects multiply rapidly, with a single female often having thousands of offspring. Would not Eden have been overrun with living carpets of insects within weeks without death?

 

[lucaspa]

3) When Adam sinned, he did NOT physically die that day as might have been implied from God's warning in verse 17. However, Adam's spiritual death did occur that day when he was separated from God. Thus, God's warning has to primarily indicate a spiritual death.

All of your points are good and I've made all of them in various posts to creationists.

6) Genesis 1:29 is considered a command to all creatures to eat only plants. However, the text does not read as a command; it reads as a gift. Plants are being given as food,

You missed an implication here. If there is no death, why do they have to eat? After all, what happens if we don't eat? We starve. to death. So this shows that there was physical death in the world.

7) Genesis 1:31 is always used to justify the absence of death before the fall. After all, if God is creating a place for Him to rule, and he called it "very good", then wouldn't it be perfect in every way? Problem is, the text "very good" does not imply physical perfection. It implies "apt-ness". God is saying that the creation is apt for His purposes, but the ultimate purpose of THIS creation is never revealed (I understand the arguments from Revelation, but won't address them here).[/quote]

Also, why is physical death "bad"? After all, if after physical death we go to live with God for eternity, how can that be "bad"?

9) Now, the meat of the discussion: Romans 5:12-21.

Paul is doing 2 things:

1. Talking about spiritual death.

2. Relating the OT to Gentiles. You must always remember that Paul is preaching to Gentiles. What's worse, the OT in existence at the time makes no mention of Jesus and Paul is telling them to ignore most of it -- all the laws. So there is naturally a question from the Gentiles: why should we pay any attention at all to this earlier religion Judaism. As a Jew, Paul tries to make connections between the Jewish faith and the new faith he is preaching. Romans 5:12-21 is one of those attempts at connection.

Let me ask you: are you going to die physically? No matter how much God blesses each of us, we will one day physically die.

Good point. Even with Jesus, we still physically die.

Nice counter to something that creationists have made up to scare Christians into accepting creationism. It's another reason creationism is really bad theology.

 

[depthdeception]

I was going over this with a friend and compiled a list of the results of the study of verses that I've seen YEC's use to support this idea, and have attempted to explain why they just don't work. I think it's pretty obvious. I have tried to be comprehensive (by reading about a half-dozen articles on the subject from AIG, ICR and other sources), but please let me know if I missed something.

Before I go on, this is well done. Good stuff. I'm not generally fond of proof-texting as a rule, but I think you have some very intelligent points to make in relation to claims that are made by creationists.

My question to YEC's is: why am I wrong in my assessment, and if I am not wrong (or have a strong point), what does that mean to YEC theology?

4) In Genesis 3:17-19, it is important to understand that Adam is never cursed. Instead, the ground is cursed and increases his labor and toil in bringing forth food. The rest of the curse reads, paraphrased: "you will work the land from the day you are born until the day you die". This is not a statement of curse; this is a statement of fact. God is not condeming Adam to death here; he is condeming him to hard labor.

I think this is a good point. What I think is especially interesting about this passage is the mention of "returning to dust." From my reading, there is nothing in the parallelism of "dust from which you came" and "dust to which you will return" that implies that the nature of the "dust" has changed between "origin" and "return". It is still dust, and the mention of "returning" to the dust implies very strongly that there is something natural in what is occurring, not something out of the ordinary.

5) In Genesis 3:22, God prevents Adam from eating from the Tree of Life. It is stated that if he does, Adam will live forever. The clear implication here, in light of what is read above: Adam's sin was not the ultimate cause of physical death, his separation from the Tree of Life was! True, sin was the indirect cause of physical death because it led to separation from the Tree of Life; however, Adam's "clock did not start ticking" when he ate the fruit. It was already ticking and had always been ticking.

And the "tree of life" is in the garden of God--and very clear allusion to the theological point that the problem of human sinfulness is related to separation from God.

 

[mindlight]

One of the key concepts of YEC - that is, that there could not be death before the fall of Adam - has always seemed untenable to me. Many times, I've been in discussions over origins, and presenting information that is not being countered, when my entire argument will be dismissed by saying something along the lines of "evolution requires death before the fall of Adam, and that would destroy the very basis of Christian faith". This is a troubling statement because, as far as I can see, scripture does not support this idea.

I was going over this with a friend and compiled a list of the results of the study of verses that I've seen YEC's use to support this idea, and have attempted to explain why they just don't work. I think it's pretty obvious. I have tried to be comprehensive (by reading about a half-dozen articles on the subject from AIG, ICR and other sources), but please let me know if I missed something.

My question to YEC's is: why am I wrong in my assessment, and if I am not wrong (or have a strong point), what does that mean to YEC theology?

1) If death did not exist before Adam's sin, then God's threat of death would have no teeth. Adam needed to understand death before he understood the consequences of sin.

2) The Tree of Life makes absolutely no sense in a garden where no creature could die.

3) When Adam sinned, he did NOT physically die that day as might have been implied from God's warning in verse 17. However, Adam's spiritual death did occur that day when he was separated from God. Thus, God's warning has to primarily indicate a spiritual death.

4) In Genesis 3:17-19, it is important to understand that Adam is never cursed. Instead, the ground is cursed and increases his labor and toil in bringing forth food. The rest of the curse reads, paraphrased: "you will work the land from the day you are born until the day you die". This is not a statement of curse; this is a statement of fact. God is not condeming Adam to death here; he is condeming him to hard labor.

5) In Genesis 3:22, God prevents Adam from eating from the Tree of Life. It is stated that if he does, Adam will live forever. The clear implication here, in light of what is read above: Adam's sin was not the ultimate cause of physical death, his separation from the Tree of Life was! True, sin was the indirect cause of physical death because it led to separation from the Tree of Life; however, Adam's "clock did not start ticking" when he ate the fruit. It was already ticking and had always been ticking.

6) Genesis 1:29 is considered a command to all creatures to eat only plants. However, the text does not read as a command; it reads as a gift. Plants are being given as food, but there are no restrictions on eating meat. The text is setting up the "circle of life", where animals are placed above plants, and it is wrong to read this as an absolute command. Nature also strongly indicates this as well - there are carniverous animals who are built to eat meat, and many whose digestive systems cannot process plants. Now, we might suggest that the fall brought around a fundamental change that caused the change of some animals into a carniverous diet, but that would conflict with basic YEC belief.

7) Genesis 1:31 is always used to justify the absence of death before the fall. After all, if God is creating a place for Him to rule, and he called it "very good", then wouldn't it be perfect in every way? Problem is, the text "very good" does not imply physical perfection. It implies "apt-ness". God is saying that the creation is apt for His purposes, but the ultimate purpose of THIS creation is never revealed (I understand the arguments from Revelation, but won't address them here).

8) Isaiah 65:25 is often used to justify the absence of carnivores before the fall. "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox...". This is viewed as a prophecy of a future of the perfection of heaven; and heaven is what our earth was before the fall. On first blush, it makes sense and seems to be a strong argument, but a contextual view makes this idea invalid. For in the same prophecy just a few verses ahead (20), you read "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought to be a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered occursed". Wait a minute! If this verse is speaking of the upcoming wonders of heaven, then is it implying that our days in heaven are numbered?!? Because that would conflict with other parts of scripture, I will say "no", although discussion of what the passage actually means is beyond the scope of this email.

9) Now, the meat of the discussion: Romans 5:12-21. This is usually viewed as the ace in the hole for the death argument. But taking in mind my point in (3) above, consider this: Paul is drawing a comparison between Adam and Christ (the new Adam). "Just as sin and death entered the world through one man" is matched by "so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men". Adam's sin brought death, but God's grace through Jesus' sacrifice brings life. Let me ask you: are you going to die physically? No matter how much God blesses each of us, we will one day physically die. Eternal life through Christ is a spiritual life that comes through resurrection. Although the text *can* indicate both physical and spiritual death as it does not call out one or the other specifically, through the information above it would appear to be more correct to conclude that Paul is speaking of a spiritual death, or the separation from God which Christ restored through His sacrifice.

10) 1 Corinthians 15:20-26. This verse seems to be even more of a slam-dunk that the passage in Romans. After all, Paul is arguing that Christ had a real, physical resurrection, and through that fact we can know that we will also be raised. However, you get the same problem as before in that all men, even those who belong to God, will physically die. Verse 22 assures us of the same thing that Romans 5 does; that Adam's sin brought separation from God, but Christ's sacrifice and triumph over that spiritual separation through his resurrection means that we will inherit eternal life. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" - when all of God's enemies have been thrown down, there will be no more separation from God. Physical and spiritual will both be co-existence with God for all eternity.

I am a YEC so I will have a go at your theme. It all hinges on the assumption that YEC requires death before the fall to be impossible. If one holds to a YEC position without accepting this assumption then most of your questions become irrelevant and your stereotype of YECs becomes the problem.

The definitions of death seem quite broad ranging in the above posts and I see no reason why a YEC position requires that plant or animal death be an impossibility before the fall. I also believe that Adam and Eve would have died had they not regularly eaten from the tree of life as they were permitted to do. If Adam had fallen out of a tall tree then he would probably have broken his arm or leg. If he had done so headfirst he may have even killed himself but since God was present in Eden and in regular contact I believe he would have simply been resurrected at that point, healed from broken limbs and told to watch how he climbed the trees. There was probably not sufficient time for any of these possibilities to be tested however in practice.

Gods instruction not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a personal command to Adam and by way of extension to Eve also. The consequence of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is clear- they will die- and no artificial separations are made bettween physical and spiritual death. When they do sin they are exiled from Eden and from the tree of life and begin to die- "for you are dust and to dust you will return". The fruit itself is not what kills them but the exile from the tree of life and the restoring power of God is.

YEC for me is focused on the age of the earth and the fact of special creation rather than macro-evolution. I do not think that the Biblical position of a young earth and special creation requires that death was impossible before the fall of man. Our lives now and before are sustained by God. After the fall the circumstances have changed about when and how we get healed and resurrected. God can heal and resurrect us as he did with Jesus right here and now but He chooses not to in a fallen world where the consequence of our sin must be made clear.

Our hope as scripture says is this:

22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life – water as clear as crystal – pouring out from the throne of God and of the Lamb, 22:2 flowing down the middle of the city’s main street. On each side of the river is the tree of life producing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month of the year. Its leaves are for the healing of the nations. 22:3 And there will no longer be any curse, and the throne of God and the Lamb will be in the city. His servants will worship him, 22:4 and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 22:5 Night will be no more, and they will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, because the Lord God will shine on them, and they will reign forever and ever.

 

[crawfish]

Mindlight,

I do agree with you that it is not a necessity when believing in a young earth, and in fact, I do know a few who believe that way (including my minister). However, it is a mainstream YEC belief, supported by multiple articles on AIG, ICR and other YEC sites. I was in a discussion with a prominent local YEC that used the argument against me, and this data was primarily put together as a response to him. I have not heard a response back since sending it a week ago.

I do apologize if I indicated otherwise. I probably should have opened up with "One of the key concepts of mainstream YEC", or "of most YEC proponents". This thread is only an attempt to deal with the one issue and is not an attack generally against YEC theology.

Oh, and thanks for the verse in Revelation - I left that one out of my analysis. I'll put up my response, with respect to the thread topic, in a bit.

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight,

I do agree with you that it is not a necessity when believing in a young earth, and in fact, I do know a few who believe that way (including my minister). However, it is a mainstream YEC belief, supported by multiple articles on AIG, ICR and other YEC sites. I was in a discussion with a prominent local YEC that used the argument against me, and this data was primarily put together as a response to him. I have not heard a response back since sending it a week ago.

I do apologize if I indicated otherwise. I probably should have opened up with "One of the key concepts of mainstream YEC", or "of most YEC proponents". This thread is only an attempt to deal with the one issue and is not an attack generally against YEC theology.

Oh, and thanks for the verse in Revelation - I left that one out of my analysis. I'll put up my response, with respect to the thread topic, in a bit.

Well thanks for that. However I do feel the need to qualify a little just in case I am misquoted later.

While I think that God created a universe in which normal natural laws would have prevailed had he not been continually present to remedy their effects, because he was continually present it existed in what would now be regarded as a miraculous state. Something quite fundamental did change with the fall which had impacts on creation itself and this is related to mans separation from God.

Two verses in particular lead me to this view:

1) The punishment of Adam in Genesis 3 implied that creation was cursed on his account-

3:17 But to Adam he said,
“Because you obeyed your wife
and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
‘You must not eat from it,’
cursed is the ground thanks to you;
in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
3:18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
but you will eat the grain of the field.
3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat food
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”

2) This is reinforced by this quote from the NT also

8:18 For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us. 8:19 For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God. 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility – not willingly but because of God who subjected it – in hope 8:21 that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children. 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now. 8:23 Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 8:24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees? 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with endurance.

The implication here being that there is discontinuity between the natural laws before and after the fall. Indeed this akin to a withdrawal of Gods gracious and life renewing presence. Creation is broken, cursed and subject to futility in a way that it was not before Adams sin. What was effortless in a perfect universe is now difficult in a broken one. And worse before Christ God became nearly inaccessible to apply the fix. Even now with Christ we are only just beginning to work the curse through. Our hope of total redemption is a distant one.

So while I do think it is simplistic to simply say there was no possibility of "death" before the fall I do think that the nature of the problem has fundamentally changed as a result of it and that what is now called "death" is something woven up with the curse on creation and the punishment on man. This kind of death will be totally destroyed at the end of things.

 

[depthdeception]

So while I do think it is simplistic to simply say there was no possibility of "death" before the fall I do think that the nature of the problem has fundamentally changed as a result of it and that what is now called "death" is something woven up with the curse on creation and the punishment on man. This kind of death will be totally destroyed at the end of things.

I would argue that the "fundamental change" is not related to biological processes, but to humanity's experience of death. When humans lived in harmony with God, death was as natural as life, another stage in life together with God. But separated from God, the only thing for humanity to hope for beyond biological death is complete dissolution as the separation from God experienced in sinfulness extracts the full measure of its existential toll.

 

[crawfish]

Well thanks for that. However I do feel the need to qualify a little just in case I am misquoted later.

While I think that God created a universe in which normal natural laws would have prevailed had he not been continually present to remedy their effects, because he was continually present it existed in what would now be regarded as a miraculous state. Something quite fundamental did change with the fall which had impacts on creation itself and this is related to mans separation from God.

Two verses in particular lead me to this view:

1) The punishment of Adam in Genesis 3 implied that creation was cursed on his account-



2) This is reinforced by this quote from the NT also


The implication here being that there is discontinuity between the natural laws before and after the fall. Indeed this akin to a withdrawal of Gods gracious and life renewing presence. Creation is broken, cursed and subject to futility in a way that it was not before Adams sin. What was effortless in a perfect universe is now difficult in a broken one. And worse before Christ God became nearly inaccessible to apply the fix. Even now with Christ we are only just beginning to work the curse through. Our hope of total redemption is a distant one.

So while I do think it is simplistic to simply say there was no possibility of "death" before the fall I do think that the nature of the problem has fundamentally changed as a result of it and that what is now called "death" is something woven up with the curse on creation and the punishment on man. This kind of death will be totally destroyed at the end of things.

I appreciate your point of view. It is definitely a twist on the story I usually hear by young-earth proponents, and it does make far more sense. However, I think it works equally well from an old earth/TE perspective.

You said, "While I think that God created a universe in which normal natural laws would have prevailed had he not been continually present to remedy their effects..." Consider this: is natural law capable of going against God's designs? God built the processes and the math behind it into the very core of His creation. As an omniscient being, he is absolutely capable of understanding all the variables, and as such, can kick off His process absolutely sure of where it will lead. If this is the case, why would God need to be "continually present to remedy their effects"? If creation itself was "very good", meaning "very apt for His purposes", then it is hard to believe that He would need to tweak it. I think any type of "course correction" would be, in effect, a weakness.

I would suggest that the truth of the two trees is that Man was left with a choice - either eternal life, flowing as one with God's design, or knowledge and the ability to subvert it. Since God cannot let man live forever in a state where he can subvert God's will, once knowledge is chosen man is no longer granted access to the Tree of Life.

The gist of the curse is "civilization" - before, Adam & Eve were living in a state where all was provided for them. They lived as one with nature, and within nature. Afterwards, to prosper they had to provide their own food through agriculture and flocks, requiring constant hard work.

 

[lucaspa]

I am a YEC so I will have a go at your theme. It all hinges on the assumption that YEC requires death before the fall to be impossible. If one holds to a YEC position without accepting this assumption then most of your questions become irrelevant and your stereotype of YECs becomes the problem.

Mindlight, this is a common argument used by YECs. You can find it both at the ICR and AiG websites. It is used most frequently to show that evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

The definitions of death seem quite broad ranging in the above posts and I see no reason why a YEC position requires that plant or animal death be an impossibility before the fall.

The definitions fall under two headings: physical death and spiritual death.

I also believe that Adam and Eve would have died had they not regularly eaten from the tree of life as they were permitted to do.

That's not in the text. However, it is implied at the end of Genesis 3 when God kicks them out of the Garden.

The consequence of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is clear- they will die- and no artificial separations are made bettween physical and spiritual death.

I will argue that there is a separation. The text says "in the day". This is even more specific in Hebrew where the word is "beyom". The prefix "be" modifies "yom" to restrict it to a 24 hour day or "immediately". "Beyom" is used in Genesis 2:1-3 to limit the 7th day to 24 hours. Obviously Adam did not die within that 24 hour period. In order to keep God from being a liar, that means that Adam had to spiritually die when he ate the fruit.

YEC for me is focused on the age of the earth and the fact of special creation rather than macro-evolution. I do not think that the Biblical position of a young earth and special creation requires that death was impossible before the fall of man.

I agree that YEC does not require that death was impossible before the Fall. Instead, YECers use it to show that evolution is "impossible" since evolution does have plants and animals dying. BUT, in making that statement or argument against evolution, YECers end up making some really bad theological arguments. And this is something that needs to be pointed out more: in their zeal to combat evolution, YEC ends up making arguments that damage God and Christianity. For instance, special creation creates all kinds of problems for God, which is why evolution was seen by Christians as rescuing God from special creation!

Notice that evolution does not contradict the hope you quoted. That is something science cannot deal with.

 

[lucaspa]

Well thanks for that. However I do feel the need to qualify a little just in case I am misquoted later.

While I think that God created a universe in which normal natural laws would have prevailed had he not been continually present to remedy their effects, because he was continually present it existed in what would now be regarded as a miraculous state.

I will argue that this is really bad theology. Remember, you are saying that God created the "natural laws". But now you are saying God must "remedy" them? What you are saying is that God made a huge mistake in creating the natural laws! That those natural laws are "bad". This, quite frankly, is the Marcionist heresy where creation is bad and evil.

The natural laws "prevail" because God continually sustains them. That is standard Christian theology. The natural laws do depend upon the will of God. So why does God sustain something that needs "remedy"?

Two verses in particular lead me to this view:

1) The punishment of Adam in Genesis 3 implied that creation was cursed on his account-

The punishments in Genesis 3 are very specific. Creation is not cursed. Instead, farming is difficult. That's it. Hunting is not made any more difficult. Nor is tending domesticated animals. No changes are made in the relations of any other species and nature. So you can't extrapolate this to "creation".

The punishments in Genesis 3 are very naive but endearing attempts to solve some of the mysteries humans encounter:
1. Why farming is so difficult.
2. Why childbearing is so painful for humans and why women keep having sex after going thru the pain of childbirth.
3. Why humans have an instinctual fear and loathing of snakes.

Compare these to comparable Greek myths dealing with similar subjects.

2) This is reinforced by this quote from the NT also

Again, Paul is trying very hard to make a connection between the OT and the gospel he is preaching. I argue that the "groan and suffering" is spiritual suffering, not with the laws of nature. The "suffering" is referring to the persecution Paul's congregations are beginning to suffer, not God's Creation itself.

The implication here being that there is discontinuity between the natural laws before and after the fall. Indeed this akin to a withdrawal of Gods gracious and life renewing presence. Creation is broken, cursed and subject to futility in a way that it was not before Adams sin. What was effortless in a perfect universe is now difficult in a broken one.

If we look at this in the light of spiritual tasks and futility. Because humans sin, there is futility in our relationship with God. Every time we try to get close to God, we screw it up by sinning. We could not obey the Laws, or the prophets. The only hope was for God to keep forgiving us, because we (as you and I) are going to keep sinning.

To have "a withdrawal of God's gracious and renewing presence" is again to go to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies. You have a creator god that is no longer present and a redemptive god in Jesus. And this is exactly those heresies!

Mindlight, that you don't even know what those heresies are does not make the danger you pose to Christianity any less. You are restating the basic claims and arguments of those heresies -- that nearly tore Christianity apart permanently -- and are arguing the validity of those heresies. Please, please think about the consequences of your arguments and what those consequences do to Christian beliefs and to God.

 

[mindlight]

I would argue that the "fundamental change" is not related to biological processes, but to humanity's experience of death. When humans lived in harmony with God, death was as natural as life, another stage in life together with God. But separated from God, the only thing for humanity to hope for beyond biological death is complete dissolution as the separation from God experienced in sinfulness extracts the full measure of its existential toll.

Before Adams sin people did not die nor would accidental death have been permanent in such a scenario as God was there to restore and had no reason not to.

So the subjective experience of death is matched by the biological reality of slow deterioration and then physical death. There is no artificial separation made between spirit and body except perhaps to suggest that the spirit is more enduring. In the same way Christs death was not a merely spiritual one- he physically died on the cross in excruitating agony and indeed was very much alive in his spirit through the time in the tomb preaching to the spirits of the dead. He is resurrected whole and this is our hope also that its not just a nice story but that when we die we can hope to be physically resurrected because we share in Christs life.

 

[mindlight]

You said, "While I think that God created a universe in which normal natural laws would have prevailed had he not been continually present to remedy their effects..." Consider this: is natural law capable of going against God's designs? God built the processes and the math behind it into the very core of His creation. As an omniscient being, he is absolutely capable of understanding all the variables, and as such, can kick off His process absolutely sure of where it will lead. If this is the case, why would God need to be "continually present to remedy their effects"? If creation itself was "very good", meaning "very apt for His purposes", then it is hard to believe that He would need to tweak it. I think any type of "course correction" would be, in effect, a weakness.

I build applications for a living. The act of creation is a pleasing thing. With good reason I can look at my applications and say - that's not half bad! But the design has to factor in the fact that these will be used by a group of people whose ability to spoil, destroy and exploit is legendary - I call these people the "Users"! Even a perfectly designed world is no match for the users God has placed in the system. We have free will and naively or deliberately have always been capable of messing up Gods perfect creation. God understands all the variables and this is the best possible universe he could have created. But freewill is the most dangerous gift of all and mankind uses it. Gods design allows for breakage in order to accomodate freewill. We are not robots programmed to carry out instructions we are free beings in what was a perfect universe before we got on our hands on it.

I would suggest that the truth of the two trees is that Man was left with a choice - either eternal life, flowing as one with God's design, or knowledge and the ability to subvert it. Since God cannot let man live forever in a state where he can subvert God's will, once knowledge is chosen man is no longer granted access to the Tree of Life.

The gist of the curse is "civilization" - before, Adam & Eve were living in a state where all was provided for them. They lived as one with nature, and within nature. Afterwards, to prosper they had to provide their own food through agriculture and flocks, requiring constant hard work.

They lived as one with God in a perfect creation. Gods transcendence was always required because it was something that he had given us too.

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight, this is a common argument used by YECs. You can find it both at the ICR and AiG websites. It is used most frequently to show that evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

Fine but it is not my position and I hold what most people on this forum would regard as a YEC posiiton because I believe in a young universe and special creation.

I will argue that there is a separation. The text says "in the day". This is even more specific in Hebrew where the word is "beyom". The prefix "be" modifies "yom" to restrict it to a 24 hour day or "immediately". "Beyom" is used in Genesis 2:1-3 to limit the 7th day to 24 hours. Obviously Adam did not die within that 24 hour period. In order to keep God from being a liar, that means that Adam had to spiritually die when he ate the fruit.

Well it cannot mean that can it cause Adam did not die on the day and God is not a liar! But Adam became a mortal being the day he sinned and the countdown to his death began.

The special circumstances of the fall need to be taken into account here. The devil with calculating intelligence is the true initiator of the days events and the heaviest punishment falls on him. This action is even more devastating with ramifications not only for the physical world but for the realm of the unseen heavens also. Adam and Eve should not have gone along with his lies and sinned in doing so but there was a kind of simple naivety in their action being misled by a superior intelligence. The true sin here on their part was that they should have remembered what God had said over a voice that seemed to them at the time to speak with the same force. God in his mercy recognises that Adam and Eves sin while serious was a result of something. He acts justly according to his word but also wisely anticipating the eventual redemption of the naive Adam and Eve and the destruction of the devil by the actions of Eves offspring the Messiah- Jesus.

I agree that YEC does not require that death was impossible before the Fall. Instead, YECers use it to show that evolution is "impossible" since evolution does have plants and animals dying. BUT, in making that statement or argument against evolution, YECers end up making some really bad theological arguments. And this is something that needs to be pointed out more: in their zeal to combat evolution, YEC ends up making arguments that damage God and Christianity. For instance, special creation creates all kinds of problems for God, which is why evolution was seen by Christians as rescuing God from special creation!

Notice that evolution does not contradict the hope you quoted. That is something science cannot deal with.

Evolution is really bad theology in my view from the point of view of understanding what it means to create. As somebody who creates things I sometimes mess up and have to redo large parts of my work. Overtime I have gotten better at getting it right first time but I am not perfect. God by contrast does not need to experiment with billions of false starts and got it right first time. In a mere 6 days he created the most complex of all creations ever and could say - yeh that's pretty good. He was of course absolutely right - it was amazing!!!!

 

[crawfish]

I build applications for a living. The act of creation is a pleasing thing. With good reason I can look at my applications and say - that's not half bad! But the design has to factor in the fact that these will be used by a group of people whose ability to spoil, destroy and exploit is legendary - I call these people the "Users"! Even a perfectly designed world is no match for the users God has placed in the system. We have free will and naively or deliberately have always been capable of messing up Gods perfect creation. God understands all the variables and this is the best possible universe he could have created. But freewill is the most dangerous gift of all and mankind uses it. Gods design allows for breakage in order to accomodate freewill. We are not robots programmed to carry out instructions we are free beings in what was a perfect universe before we got on our hands on it.

I agree. However, I was speaking of the creation - that time before man's free will had been exercised. Before man sinned, God's natural law could only chug on by in exactly the way God intended it to go.

They lived as one with God in a perfect creation. Gods transcendence was always required because it was something that he had given us too.

I do not agree with this. I see no implication that creation, or Eden, was "perfection". That subject itself will probably require the same treatment as "death before the fall" to be fully addressed, though.

 

[crawfish]

Well it cannot mean that can it cause Adam did not die on the day and God is not a liar! But Adam became a mortal being the day he sinned and the countdown to his death began.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be conflicting yourself here. According to what we seem to agree on above, Adam was already a "mortal creature". He was only immortal in his access to the Tree of Life. It wasn't the sin that caused his mortality - if that was the case, then God would have not had to block his way to the Tree of Life. In essence, God blocked man from the Tree of Life because He did not want us to be able to live eternally in sin.


Again, Adam's clock was already ticking the day he sinned. The implication is that Adam had the free will to choose neither knowledge or life, and simply die in the garden.

 

[mindlight]

I will argue that this is really bad theology. Remember, you are saying that God created the "natural laws". But now you are saying God must "remedy" them? What you are saying is that God made a huge mistake in creating the natural laws! That those natural laws are "bad". This, quite frankly, is the Marcionist heresy where creation is bad and evil.

Can one quote from Genesis and be a Marcionite ;-) ? I never said that God created an imperfect universe- he created a good one - the best possible universe in which the life of a man could be conceived in fact. But he also created beings like himself with a transcendence of creation. That transcendence is necessary for freedom to be real but threatens the whole design. This is why man not creation is the true marvel. Created in his image we have something of the creative transcendence of the divine. When Tolkein creates a parallel universe or a painter envisages undiscovered life on undiscovered worlds that transcendence is at work.

The natural laws "prevail" because God continually sustains them. That is standard Christian theology. The natural laws do depend upon the will of God. So why does God sustain something that needs "remedy"?

Why does Christ feed people out of thin air or turn water into wine or find it necessary to walk on water or ascend to heaven in the way that he did? Why transcend the laws he had created? Its the same question. Nature has laws - true but it in the nature of God that we discover the reason for things being the way that they are. So what seems impossible is not and what seems naturally inauthentic speaks for a deeper reality we altoften ignore when putting together our thoughts about God and what He has made.

The punishments in Genesis 3 are very specific. Creation is not cursed. Instead, farming is difficult. That's it. Hunting is not made any more difficult. Nor is tending domesticated animals. No changes are made in the relations of any other species and nature. So you can't extrapolate this to "creation".

The punishments in Genesis 3 are very naive but endearing attempts to solve some of the mysteries humans encounter:
1. Why farming is so difficult.
2. Why childbearing is so painful for humans and why women keep having sex after going thru the pain of childbirth.
3. Why humans have an instinctual fear and loathing of snakes.

Compare these to comparable Greek myths dealing with similar subjects.

The text says the ground was cursed. The NT endorses this. What had been effortless is now a chore. Struggle replaces ease, thorns and thistles compete with crops... creation is broken in a way that it was not broken before. It echoes the new mortality of man.

Again, Paul is trying very hard to make a connection between the OT and the gospel he is preaching. I argue that the "groan and suffering" is spiritual suffering, not with the laws of nature. The "suffering" is referring to the persecution Paul's congregations are beginning to suffer, not God's Creation itself.

If we look at this in the light of spiritual tasks and futility. Because humans sin, there is futility in our relationship with God. Every time we try to get close to God, we screw it up by sinning. We could not obey the Laws, or the prophets. The only hope was for God to keep forgiving us, because we (as you and I) are going to keep sinning.

Actually Paul is trying to put the sufferings of the church in a global context here - so the whole creation is groaning... is subject to futility, the whole of history is effected and that moreover the dissolution and ruin of creation is not a merely natural event but the result of a judicial degree- entropy by judgment. Individuals can take heart from the enormity of the process, from Gods sovereignty over it and from the eventual happy and glorious ending that it is leading us to.

Read Pipers sermon on this for a more articulate expression of the themes of the passage:

Subjected to Futility in Hope, Part 1 :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

To have "a withdrawal of God's gracious and renewing presence" is again to go to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies. You have a creator god that is no longer present and a redemptive god in Jesus. And this is exactly those heresies!

Mindlight, that you don't even know what those heresies are does not make the danger you pose to Christianity any less. You are restating the basic claims and arguments of those heresies -- that nearly tore Christianity apart permanently -- and are arguing the validity of those heresies. Please, please think about the consequences of your arguments and what those consequences do to Christian beliefs and to God.

This is a little arrogant ("you don't even know what those heresies are")- you falsely assume a lot about me. I believe I have answered many of your worries in my subsequent postings and you may have misunderstood my position to some extent. But I am neither a Marcionite or a Gnostic and I think that you should be more careful how you talk to a brother in the Lord. You appear to dress up pride in compassion.

Gods judgment on Adam has changed the relationship and made it more distant , but even within the judgment there is anticipation of how God will restore the intimacy of a relationship that is important enough to Him to send His son to die for us on a cross. Adam and Eve hid from God after the fall, God banished them from Eden- mankind is broken and fallen because of what happened. So yes we experience the absence of God in the absurdity of a suffering world. St Paul reminds us the reasons why we experience the world in this way and the hope we should have about how the story ends.

 

[juvenissun]

I just want to propose a presumption to this issue.

Would the problem become much easier if plants and many insects were not treated as being alive? So, the deterioration of them is not really the "death" of our concern?

 

[crawfish]

I just want to propose a presumption to this issue.

Would the problem become much easier if plants and many insects were not treated as being alive? So, the deterioration of them is not really the "death" of our concern?

Not to me. I don't believe that the scriptures imply that even Adam & Eve could not die (as explained above).

 

[mindlight]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be conflicting yourself here. According to what we seem to agree on above, Adam was already a "mortal creature". He was only immortal in his access to the Tree of Life. It wasn't the sin that caused his mortality - if that was the case, then God would have not had to block his way to the Tree of Life. In essence, God blocked man from the Tree of Life because He did not want us to be able to live eternally in sin.


Again, Adam's clock was already ticking the day he sinned. The implication is that Adam had the free will to choose neither knowledge or life, and simply die in the garden.

Adam was vulnerable to natural laws e.g. gravity. The tree of life would not have been much good to him had he fallen out of it head first from the highest branch. His life was therefore guaranteed by the continual presence of God in the garden who can pick a man up from the dead.

His mortality was thus only potential and unlikely to ever be significant.

Following the fall it was guaranteed that he would experience death and this time it carried the character of punishment and he was given no hope of resurrection at the time. Death before was not a problem because it could only be accidental and was unlikely to be permanent with God around and the tree of life guaranteed it could not be insidious.

Now because of Christ we know the full story. God means us to experience death but we will be raised and by faith find our way back to him. Life has lost its carefree naivety and the cost of our sin is all too clear.

I wonder if baptism captures this theme of dying to be reborn. Before the fall we had nothing we needed to die to , after it we must die to purge what is sick and spoiling in our lives.

Before the fall natural laws were not as significant as people now weight them. Now they are distorted by a judgment that has effectively broken creation to achieve Gods higher purpose.