The wages of sin

[Apollo Rhetor]

For those of you who are theistic evolutionists, help me to understand what is meant by the wages of sin being death.

Our Lord and Saviour died on the cross to save us from our sin. He experienced both a physical death and a spiritual separation from God. It cannot be said that the death spoken of by God in Genesis 2:17 is merely spiritual. Otherwise, why was our Savior cut off? Why did His spirit need to leave his body? How is it that the animal sacrifices and the shedding of blood under the Law was a symbol of that to come?

It cannot merely mean physical death either - of that we can all agree I believe. Our Lord Jesus was resurrected, not just spiritually but physically. Throughout the Scriptures we see physical death as inescapably woven up with the teaching of it as a just wage for sin. The idea of death is as much a physical as a spiritual one. We are going to be given immortal resurrected bodies one day. We will not just experience eternal spiritual life, but eternal physical life too. Sin requires physical death as payment, and sin produces a spiritual death too. But the salvation of our Lord gives both a physical and a spiritual resurrection.

If we are merely the descendends of four billion years of evolution then I see a number of possible answers:
1. At the very first life sinned - that first simple single celled organism somehow offended God, and spread sin throughout history. This way one can say that death did not precede sin. But if this is true, then we have no means to understand sin - what sin can a single celled lifeform commit that we humans can possibly relate to? What *is* sin? Surely nothing that we have come to understand.
2. The idea of a physical death is merely symbolic - but then one must ask, why did our Saviour need to die? Why, even, did He need to come in a physical body? If the wage of sin is spiritual death alone, then surely Jesus could have achieved His redemption by purely spiritual means? Christ's death seems to have been unecessary - yet the whole of Scriptures, when they tell us why He had to die, say it is because death entered the world through sin and the wages of sin is death. Physical death is tied over and over again with the idea of sin
3. Christianity is mistaken, and death is natural and "good" - insofar as good can apply to a universe with no absolutes
4. Life does not all have common ancestors, but rather shares the same creator - evolution is a process of natural selection and adaptation, but is not sufficient grounds for explaining a simple single-celled organism being the progenitor of all living things. Death did not enter the world until an ancestor of humanity sinned

I'm not so much interested in the literal and poetic parts of Genesis. What seems to be taught clearly throughout the Scriptures is that death is the product of sin. That without sin there is no death. That is something taught outside of Genesis.

How does the theistic evolutionist explain the Scriptures which show physical death as a product of sin?

 

[Proselyte]

Great post. Raises some interesting questions.

 

[Willtor]

Good questions. I don't think there's a consensus among TE's any more than there's a consensus among theologians. I'll tell you about what I think, but you probably can't use this with respect to other TE's.

Certainly, I don't think there is any evil in physical death. It would be difficult for me to believe that the death given to humanity applied to anything more than humanity. Beyond that, the story talks about the Man and Woman having to eat from "the tree of life" as though they were not inherently immortal. Now, the question is whether the tree of life was intended to represent something that prolonged spiritual life only, or both spiritual and physical life? Was humanity destined to die, physically, one way or another? Let us suppose that it was merely a spiritual sustenance. In this case, humans were going to die, just as the animals were going to die. But the people, themselves, would persist, spiritually, beyond death. Would they be brought to heaven, or would God create, again, and bring them to the new Earth? Suppose it were both a physical and spiritual sustenance. In this case, what happens as the universe approaches heat death? Were they going to be translated to heaven, or a new creation?

One has to analyze what the figure represents. I am quite taken by Athanasius' analysis of the creation account in which he suggests that the nature of taking from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was, in fact, men taking their eyes off God and directing their vision to themselves. In this sense, I am led to think that the tree of life represents the Word of God. Other Scripture indicates that it is the Word of God on which man truly lives. In turning away from God, and becoming their own masters, they lost sight of God's Word.

Reacquiring our connection to God through the Incarnation of His Word gives us eternal life. However, we still have to die, physically. This leads me to lean more towards the idea that man was going to die, physically, either way. But it doesn't completely resolve the issue, and I readily acknowledge that there are many people I respect who think differently.

 

[billwald]

Because God made the rules? Does it have to be rational?

 

[gluadys]

For those of you who are theistic evolutionists, help me to understand what is meant by the wages of sin being death.


If we are merely the descendends of four billion years of evolution then I see a number of possible answers:
1. At the very first life sinned - that first simple single celled organism somehow offended God, and spread sin throughout history. This way one can say that death did not precede sin. But if this is true, then we have no means to understand sin - what sin can a single celled lifeform commit that we humans can possibly relate to? What *is* sin? Surely nothing that we have come to understand.

I would certainly reject this. Sin is a moral concept and requires a moral agent. Angels can sin, humans can sin, but other creaturely life cannot sin because other creatures are not moral agents.

2. The idea of a physical death is merely symbolic - but then one must ask, why did our Saviour need to die? Why, even, did He need to come in a physical body? If the wage of sin is spiritual death alone, then surely Jesus could have achieved His redemption by purely spiritual means? Christ's death seems to have been unecessary - yet the whole of Scriptures, when they tell us why He had to die, say it is because death entered the world through sin and the wages of sin is death. Physical death is tied over and over again with the idea of sin

This is where I believe we have to accept that fact overrides theory and logic and theology. No matter how elegant a theory, no matter how tight one's logic, no matter how well argued one's theology, if it does not coincide with factual events, it must be revised. The point of theology as well as of science, is to understand what is. There is no point in wasting time asking whether what is meets a theological frame of reference. Whether it is theologically correct or not, whatever is is.

The fact is that natural biological death existed in this world for many ages before any humans existed. The fact is that natural biological death is a necessary consequence of natural biological life.

That is a fact theology must deal with, not try to wave away.

I conclude from this that no earthly creature (including our first parents) was created to be immortal. I take it that the Tree of Life offered the possibility to become immortal, but that until its fruit was eaten mortal beings would not become immortal.

I also conclude that natural death prior to the fall was different from natural death after the fall in that it was not connected with separation from God. If it was God's intention that some or all of his creation become immortal, natural death would be a passageway to immortality in God's presence.

The fall, however, brings in a new situation. Now, not only is there separation from God in the present moment, but physical death threatens to make that separation permanent. It can no longer be a passageway to immortality, but rather a permanent barrier to immortality.

It is in this sense that we can speak of death entering the world as a consequence of sin. For this death, separation from God through all eternity, physically and spiritually, did not exist before sin.

4. Life does not all have common ancestors, but rather shares the same creator

It has both. There is no need to make creation and evolution mutually exclusive.

- evolution is a process of natural selection and adaptation, but is not sufficient grounds for explaining a simple single-celled organism being the progenitor of all living things.

Before you criticise science, you should know what the science is. Science does not hold that life began as a single organism. Not even, necessarily, as a single population.

What the evidence does indicate is that all today's species are descendants of a single population, however many contemporaries that population may have had.

Before you wave away the idea that all species today have a common ancestor, check out the evidence. It is the evidence, not theory, that tells us what is.

 

[jereth]

It continues to amaze me how YECists can keep going on about how the death of animals pre-fall supposedly ruins the foundations of the Christian Gospel.

Let's think about it sensibly. "The wages of sin is death". Yes. "Death spread to all men because all sinned." Yes. And what have animals got to do with it, for crying out loud?!?

Let's just say that before the fall, humans were immortal but animals were mortal. Adam sinned, so humans became mortal too. Then Jesus came and died on the cross to redeem humanity from death. After the resurrection humans will once again be immortal, but animals will still be mortal. For heavens sake, what is the problem with believing this??? Can you please show us how exactly salvation has been undermined!??!

I'm sorry, but this issue really bugs me. You are welcome to believe what you like about the pre-fall world, but can you please stop saying that Christians who disagree with you have somehow destroyed the gospel? This is a ludicrous conclusion. Anyone whose believes such a thing seriously needs to go back to square one and check that they themselves understand just what the gospel is.

The stark reality is this: the Christian Gospel teaches that Jesus redeems mankind from death. If you want to believe in a "gospel" which teaches that Jesus redeems mankind from death, and Jesus redeems animals from death, and Jesus gets rid of snake poison and rose thorns and bee stings -- then you are not believing the Christian gospel, but rather a "gospel plus", a different gospel, a gospel contrary to that taught by the apostles and the Lord Jesus himself.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Certainly, I don't think there is any evil in physical death.

This is definitely a consistent point of view for a TE, but in Scripture we see talk of overcoming death, eternal life, an end to physical suffering, resurecction, and other concepts involving avoiding or overcoming death as good. We also see the inverse - death is associate with evil things: death is the reward for sin, we must pay the price of death for our sins, death was required to overcome sin by our Saviour (who cried out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" which shows death as cutting us off from God.) It is the most natural reading of Scriptures to associate eternal life with God's plan, and death as the unnatural thing. We are told, simply, that through Adam death came into the world.

It would be difficult for me to believe that the death given to humanity applied to anything more than humanity. Beyond that, the story talks about the Man and Woman having to eat from "the tree of life" as though they were not inherently immortal.

Bear in mind that we must eat normally anyway. I see no problem with humans being immortal, but also needing some external sustenance to survive.

Reacquiring our connection to God through the Incarnation of His Word gives us eternal life. However, we still have to die, physically. This leads me to lean more towards the idea that man was going to die, physically, either way. But it doesn't completely resolve the issue, and I readily acknowledge that there are many people I respect who think differently.

Those who are alive when our Lord returns will not necessarily die to receive their glorified bodies. Nor did Enoch die, but rather ascended to heaven - as did Elijah. Death is not a necessary transition.

It is also not just the Scriptures which teach us death is a bad thing. Doesn't our very nature cry out against death? Don't we feel sadness at the death of a pet? How much more sorrow at the passing of a human life? Is not our life too short, just a spark? That we work so long and only when we begin to master something does our body begin to fail on us and then die. Jesus himself wept at someone's death. God will wipe away all our tears. We feel sadness at things which ought not to be.

As you said, I don't think your answer completely covers the issue. As a Christian reading the Bible I cannot help but see that death is seen as a result of sin, and something undesirable.

More responses will follow for the other two replies.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

This is where I believe we have to accept that fact overrides theory and logic and theology. No matter how elegant a theory, no matter how tight one's logic, no matter how well argued one's theology, if it does not coincide with factual events, it must be revised. The point of theology as well as of science, is to understand what is.

With this you will find no dispute for me. We are Christians because Christianity is true. If Christianity was not true, then we ought not be Christians.

There is no point in wasting time asking whether what is meets a theological frame of reference. Whether it is theologically correct or not, whatever is is.

This is wrong, though. If a theological frame of reference does not meet our understanding of the physical world, we have two options:
1. Our theological frame of reference is mistaken (in this case, Christianity)
or
2. Our understanding of the physical world is mistaken (in this case, all life sharing a common ancestor)

I'm asking the theistic evolution, who believes both in Christianity and in Darwinian Evolution, how they can unite both this theological framework with their understanding of the physical world.

The fact is that natural biological death existed in this world for many ages before any humans existed. The fact is that natural biological death is a necessary consequence of natural biological life.

That is a fact theology must deal with, not try to wave away.

Precisely. I'm asking here how you can unite theology with what you claim are the facts. Not to wave it away.

Regarding the facts, that is something it may be worth me discussing with you sometime.

I conclude from this that no earthly creature (including our first parents) was created to be immortal. I take it that the Tree of Life offered the possibility to become immortal, but that until its fruit was eaten mortal beings would not become immortal.

Possibly, yes. This point I accept already and it's not what I have an issue with. Below you answer the point I do:

I also conclude that natural death prior to the fall was different from natural death after the fall in that it was not connected with separation from God. If it was God's intention that some or all of his creation become immortal, natural death would be a passageway to immortality in God's presence.

As I said earlier, and I've reiterated in my last post, the idea of death in general is described as undesirable and not God's intention. Not just for humans, but for animals also. Otherwise the Scriptures would not say that death entered the world through sin, and that by Adam. And if you say this refers to spiritual death alone, I have already mentioned why I believe spiritual death an insufficient explanation.

Either death did enter the world through sin, or it is a natural state of affairs, and what God intended or permitted before man had sinned.

The fall, however, brings in a new situation. Now, not only is there separation from God in the present moment, but physical death threatens to make that separation permanent. It can no longer be a passageway to immortality, but rather a permanent barrier to immortality.

It is in this sense that we can speak of death entering the world as a consequence of sin. For this death, separation from God through all eternity, physically and spiritually, did not exist before sin.

This assumes, contrary to Scripture, two things:
1. That death is God's passageway into mortality (Which raises even greater questions such as why we must live in a universe and suffer and die before we can experience the good - I assume that death was painful before the fall as it is now after the fall. why a universe of suffering and death was created if it was not intended as our abode in the long run - why create a new heaven and a new earth, as promised in revelation? how is it that Elijah and Enoch did not have to die?)
2. Suffering, pain, sorrow, are all natural and not at all undesirable states of affairs

In fact, the idea of death being a gateway into the afterlife makes this life sound like a trial or a test. It reminds me strongly of Mormonism which sees life as exactly that - we are the offspring of God, and our immortal preborn spirits chose to come here, knowing of the trials that God has set in place in this universe of sufferring. Those who pass in spades will be resurrected into the greatest glory.

It does not mesh with the Christian idea in Scriptures that death is an unnatural state of affairs. It does not mesh with the idea that our current bodies are corrupted, and we will be given resurrected immortal bodies - given them because they are needed as a direct result of sin.

This whole idea that death is a gateway into immortality to me seems completely foreign to Scriptures and without any precedence or foundation. When Scripture answers the question "why must we die?", it states clearly "because we have sinned". Never does it suggest that attaining immortality is the purpose behind death for humans.

Before you criticise science, you should know what the science is. Science does not hold that life began as a single organism. Not even, necessarily, as a single population.

"What science is" is a philosophical question. You speak of science as though it is an entity or a philosophy itself, which it is not. "Science" does not hold anything. There are empirical experiments and results which demonstrate certain things. There are then conclusions drawn from the scientific process.
Two scientists may practice science and hold different conclusions. One may be right, the other may be wrong - but it is not "science" which holds the truth or a fact. Both men practice science. Science is a process, a way of obtaining truth/fact about the universe.

Thus, when you say "Science does not hold that life began as a single organism" you are really talking about conclusions drawn by people from the results of various scientific experiments.

I very much dislike people setting up science on a pedestal as though it is some sort of teacher. It is a process for obtaining truth, and it is not the only such process to do so.

I have absolutely no problem with the scientific process.

What the evidence does indicate is that all today's species are descendants of a single population, however many contemporaries that population may have had.

Before you wave away the idea that all species today have a common ancestor, check out the evidence. It is the evidence, not theory, that tells us what is.

Well, your correction of what is the consensus of the scientific community doesn't change the fact that you believe all living things share a common ancestor. I merely say a simple single celled organism because that is what I have heard most often claimed. It is the common ancestry that interests me.

I have examined the theory of evolution in quite a lot of detail in the past, and found it wanting as an explanation of the origin of life.

 

[Willtor]

This is definitely a consistent point of view for a TE, but in Scripture we see talk of overcoming death, eternal life, an end to physical suffering, resurecction, and other concepts involving avoiding or overcoming death as good. We also see the inverse - death is associate with evil things: death is the reward for sin, we must pay the price of death for our sins, death was required to overcome sin by our Saviour (who cried out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" which shows death as cutting us off from God.) It is the most natural reading of Scriptures to associate eternal life with God's plan, and death as the unnatural thing. We are told, simply, that through Adam death came into the world.

It is strange, then, that we still die, physically. Yes? I mean, Jesus died once for all. I don't know what the most natural reading of Scripture for any particular person indicates, but a consistent reading certainly supports salvation from spiritual death unto spiritual life. Now, no doubt, this includes salvation unto physical life, but it doesn't bar physical death. : More below (with regards to Enoch, etc.)

Bear in mind that we must eat normally anyway. I see no problem with humans being immortal, but also needing some external sustenance to survive.

And this is why I say there was death before the fall. When you eat, you are killing. Whether it be plant or animal, there is death when you eat.

Those who are alive when our Lord returns will not necessarily die to receive their glorified bodies. Nor did Enoch die, but rather ascended to heaven - as did Elijah. Death is not a necessary transition.

Yes, there are examples of people who didn't die, physically, but as I said above, this is not the general case. Even now, Christians are dying, physically. Again, if Christ died once for all, is the "all" simply Enoch, Elijah, and the saints who are raptured at the end? No. Therefore, I don't see physical death as something which is necessarily evil.

It is also not just the Scriptures which teach us death is a bad thing. Doesn't our very nature cry out against death? Don't we feel sadness at the death of a pet? How much more sorrow at the passing of a human life? Is not our life too short, just a spark? That we work so long and only when we begin to master something does our body begin to fail on us and then die. Jesus himself wept at someone's death. God will wipe away all our tears. We feel sadness at things which ought not to be.

It seems to me that people are saddened by physical death because they miss the person who has passed on. Is this any less legitimate for a Christian than a non-Christian? Sure, we are certain to see a fellow Christian, again. But it may not be for a very long time. We are not called not to mourn. We are simply exhorted not to mourn as the pagans do.

I think you could make a much stronger case talking about the fear of death. But even then, what is this fear for a Christian? Don't we know that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord? When we have fear, it is an uncertainty with respect to the promise of God. One cannot beat himself up about it. One's faith will be perfected. But what about Man "in the garden?" One whose eyes are focused perfectly on God has no fear of anything. His nature does not "cry out" against physical death.

As you said, I don't think your answer completely covers the issue. As a Christian reading the Bible I cannot help but see that death is seen as a result of sin, and something undesirable.

. . .

That's your call. Incidentally, though, I was saying that my answer didn't completely cover the issue, not because it didn't satisfy, but because it wasn't a complete treatise on the issue.

 

[Assyrian]

A big problem understanding what the bible has to say about death is that it uses the same word for physical and spiritual death.


Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.


So Paul is describing his experience as a child, old enough to understand right from wrong, he sins and dies... But obviously he was still physically alive years later when he wrote the epistle to the Romans. Somehow we see his understanding of the death that come through sin here. He sinned, and died.


In Romans 5 we see a similar illustration of death that spread to all men because all sin. Presumably it didn't spread to Paul when he was a child, until he sinned.


Yet Paul uses the same word death to describe Christ's death on the cross and the resurrection from the dead, both of which have physical as well as spiritual aspects. The best I understand it is that it is the lethal combination of human mortality with being cut off from God by sin that required Christ to go through the sin laden death he died for us. He bore our sin and shared the physical death that for us would have sealed our alienation from God though sin.


Assyrian

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

It continues to amaze me how YECists can keep going on about how the death of animals pre-fall supposedly ruins the foundations of the Christian Gospel.

I don't really consider myself a YEC - though I once did, and I'm closer to it than I am to TE. I believe that the 6 days of creation could be metaphorical for longer periods of time.

But moving on...

Let's think about it sensibly. "The wages of sin is death". Yes. "Death spread to all men because all sinned." Yes. And what have animals got to do with it, for crying out loud?!?

Let's just say that before the fall, humans were immortal but animals were mortal. Adam sinned, so humans became mortal too. Then Jesus came and died on the cross to redeem humanity from death. After the resurrection humans will once again be immortal, but animals will still be mortal. For heavens sake, what is the problem with believing this??? Can you please show us how exactly salvation has been undermined!??!

When I wrote my reply, I don't think I mentioned animals at all, but I do see your point.

It's pretty simple really. On the question of death (and the suffering that results from it) the Bible is pretty clear: Death entered the world after sin.

Plant death is different. Genesis describes the breath of life as being in animals and humans, not plants. Plants are a different order of creation alltogether. They feel no sufferring or pain, have no thoughts.

I'm sorry, but this issue really bugs me. You are welcome to believe what you like about the pre-fall world, but can you please stop saying that Christians who disagree with you have somehow destroyed the gospel? This is a ludicrous conclusion. Anyone whose believes such a thing seriously needs to go back to square one and check that they themselves understand just what the gospel is.

Your overly hostile nature forgets that there is nothing truly wrong with posing challenges for others and seeing if they can answer. We test each others beliefs in order to obtain the truth.

You can challenge my beliefs if you like. I will still call TE's brothers and sisters in Christ, even if I do believe that it is a false belief.

The stark reality is this: the Christian Gospel teaches that Jesus redeems mankind from death. If you want to believe in a "gospel" which teaches that Jesus redeems mankind from death, and Jesus redeems animals from death, and Jesus gets rid of snake poison and rose thorns and bee stings -- then you are not believing the Christian gospel, but rather a "gospel plus", a different gospel, a gospel contrary to that taught by the apostles and the Lord Jesus himself.

This is a fascinating statement (a different gospel) - the Scriptures state that death entered the world through sin. Death is always seen as something unnatural. Frankly, I do not believe in a perfect world where animals die. I believe that they will live eternally as well. But they have no immortal spirit to redeem. If an animal dies it returns to dust and that is its end. If a human dies then his immortal spirit lives on. When we receive resurrected bodies and live on the new Earth, so will the animals there live forever. But they will still have no immortal Spirit, and this is why the gospel is not for animals. Spiritual redemption is of far more import than physical redemption. Yet physical redemption is an important part in God's complete plan for us.

And human experience testifies to this too, that animal death is not what ought to be. It is not just the passing of a loved one that causes sorrow - it is suffering, and the thought of others suffering. When we feel a loss for an animal that we loved, that sorrow is not going to be restored one day because that animal is dead forever. That animal is gone. Animals can feel pain and sufferring, and there is often nothing we can do about it. This we feel is not how things ought to be.

As God said in Genesis 1:29-30:

29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

This breath life which is in animals and humans, but not plants, is what we feel a sorrow for the passing of. It is this loss of life which both Scriptures and our own human nature cries out against - that we understand internally is not how things *ought* to be.

The problem of TE exists on so many levels. Take the story in Genesis. Let us assume that it is a metaphor, or an allegory. It describes two humans who lived in an ideal world where there was no suffering, no want for anything. Where food was plants, and animals lived with humans in harmony.

If that is a metaphor, and the reality is that humans ate animals, and animals ate animals, animals killed humans, and suffering was rampant - then what was the author of Genesis trying to portray by talking about this ideal world that never existed?

Let's put it another way. Jesus provides the parable of the prodigal son. It's a story that explains an idea: that a son did wrong against his father, lived his own life, and then returned with a humble heart. Instead of his father punishing his son, he welcomed him with open arms.

That story makes sense - we understand what the metaphor is trying to explain, and why it used the imagery that it did. Each image has its place in the story.

With Genesis however there are so many strange things that seem to have no bearing on reality, no reason for being in the story at all, if TE is true.

* Why does Genesis describe an idealic world void of sufferring and death, where animals and humans alike are given plants for food? Why is this in the metaphor? What does it add to it, besides confusion?
* Why does it describe a world where animals and humans live in harmony? What does this represent, what is it trying to say?
* Why do the Scriptures have a clear symmetry between before the fall (an ideal world void of sufferring and death in Genesis) and after the return of our Saviour (where the child plays with lions and snakes, and they do not harm each other as in Isaiah 11)? Anyone reading could not be called foolish for thinking that this was a return to the pre-fall state - yet if TE's are right then this is a movement into a state in which the world never was. Yet Genesis makes it appear that it was once like that. Why? What does this achieve?
* What is this plant which God did not want men to eat, that if he did he would live forever? What does that represent? Does it have meaning? The garden itself must be symbolic if TE's are correct, so the plant itself cannot be literal either. It seems to me to have little or no meaning/bearing on the story as a whole. Yet in Revelation we see the description of this same tree which if we eat from we will live forever.
* Why does God show Adam naming all the animals first, and being unable to find a comparable partner? Why is it He then creates Eve? What does this tell us, and why is it in the story? It seems to have no meaning or bearing on reality. After all, men would have had women from the very first day that homo sapiens arose. It doesn't teach us anything.

The start of Genesis seems to me to be a confusing and irrelevant story with very little to do with the core meaning. It would have been far simpler for the author to write:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He gave man dominion over all living things, and commanded him to be fruitful and multiply. Man rejected God by disobeying him, and through that became separated from God.

Why all this mention of things which have no bearing on reality except to confuse? Why this long winded story of half-truths/no-truths that have only confused generations about reality?

The simplest and best answer I can find to this is that the author of Genesis wrote his own understanding, and not the inspired words of God. Thus we ended up with a myth rather than what God truly wanted to tell us.

Verses can't be taken in isolation. The entire story of Scripture shows us a creation which is filled with sufferring and evil that are a result of sin. that these sufferrings will pass when our Saviour returns, and are not how things ought to be.

But if TE is true, then I can find a world with very little different today than what it was before the fall. We live in a world indistinguishable from what our ancestors lived in before the fall. It has the very same greed and vices, evils and sufferrings.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

And this is why I say there was death before the fall. When you eat, you are killing. Whether it be plant or animal, there is death when you eat.

Plants are and always have been different. They were not given the breath of life in the story in Genesis 1:30 as animals and humans were.

The idea of death that resulted from sin is linked with sufferring and pain - two things that plants cannot experience. Plants also lack sentience.

Yes, there are examples of people who didn't die, physically, but as I said above, this is not the general case. Even now, Christians are dying, physically. Again, if Christ died once for all, is the "all" simply Enoch, Elijah, and the saints who are raptured at the end? No. Therefore, I don't see physical death as something which is necessarily evil.

You stated that you believed men had to die. I was pointing out that God was pleased in some cases to remove the step of death from what is His plan. In other words, death is absolutely and undeniably not necessary for salvation or God's plan.

It also rebukes Gluadys' idea that death is the passageway into immortality. I believe that humans already possess immortal spirits. Whether or not we sinned, our spirit will live forever. What salvation grants us is eternal life - life with a resurrected body in a new, physical earth.

It seems to me that people are saddened by physical death because they miss the person who has passed on. Is this any less legitimate for a Christian than a non-Christian? Sure, we are certain to see a fellow Christian, again. But it may not be for a very long time. We are not called not to mourn. We are simply exhorted not to mourn as the pagans do.

As I mentioned above, we mourn at the passing of an animal. but not only that, we mourn at sufferring and pain that results from the process of dying. And this pain and sufferring has always been present, even before the fall. This sadness we feel towards pain and sufferring in others is unconnected to the fall. We have this sense of sadness at things we believe ought not to be, and things we wished were not. Can we truly say that this sadness at the sufferring and pain of loved ones is a sinful sadness? Because otherwise we must accept it as a sadness against that which God intended.

I think you could make a much stronger case talking about the fear of death. But even then, what is this fear for a Christian? Don't we know that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord? When we have fear, it is an uncertainty with respect to the promise of God. One cannot beat himself up about it. One's faith will be perfected. But what about Man "in the garden?" One whose eyes are focused perfectly on God has no fear of anything. His nature does not "cry out" against physical death.

Yet he, as Jesus, may still feel sadness at the passing of a loved one. And not just sadness at their death, but also for the sufferring and pain they experienced before it.

We feel fear not just of death, but of sufferring. One who is unafraid of death may still be afraid of the sufferring that precedes it. And even if he does not, his or her loved ones may still feel sorrow for them.

 

[Willtor]

Plants are and always have been different. They were not given the breath of life in the story in Genesis 1:30 as animals and humans were.

The idea of death that resulted from sin is linked with sufferring and pain - two things that plants cannot experience. Plants also lack sentience.

Lots of animals lack sentience, too. I just don't get what you're saying out of those verses. For the bulk of Scripture, when it talks about "the world," it's talking about men. When sin enters the world, it's talking about the world of men. Just as God "so loved the world," I don't think it's talking about the mosquito I squashed when it landed on me. Not that God has no concern for mosquitoes, but I don't think that's what the passage is discussing.

You stated that you believed men had to die. I was pointing out that God was pleased in some cases to remove the step of death from what is His plan. In other words, death is absolutely and undeniably not necessary for salvation or God's plan.

Yeah, I have no problem with that. Same with a man being destined to die, once, and then the judgement; which applies neither to these people nor Lazarus or others who were raised, only to die, later.

It also rebukes Gluadys' idea that death is the passageway into immortality. I believe that humans already possess immortal spirits. Whether or not we sinned, our spirit will live forever. What salvation grants us is eternal life - life with a resurrected body in a new, physical earth.

Maybe. But, just as it is the general case for all to die, physically, so it may be that those who never die are transfigured. Who knows? As far as I can tell, any statement about such things is speculative.

As I mentioned above, we mourn at the passing of an animal. but not only that, we mourn at sufferring and pain that results from the process of dying. And this pain and sufferring has always been present, even before the fall. This sadness we feel towards pain and sufferring in others is unconnected to the fall. We have this sense of sadness at things we believe ought not to be, and things we wished were not. Can we truly say that this sadness at the sufferring and pain of loved ones is a sinful sadness? Because otherwise we must accept it as a sadness against that which God intended.

Wait, did you say there was pain and suffering even before the fall?

As for your question, no, I don't think it's a sinful sadness. And I don't think it's against God. I think there is nothing wrong, and everything right about mourning. Just not mourning as the pagans do; in uncertainty, or misbelief.

Yet he, as Jesus, may still feel sadness at the passing of a loved one. And not just sadness at their death, but also for the sufferring and pain they experienced before it.

We feel fear not just of death, but of sufferring. One who is unafraid of death may still be afraid of the sufferring that precedes it. And even if he does not, his or her loved ones may still feel sorrow for them.

Certainly, I fear suffering. And yes, I feel sorrow for those who are suffering. But I was talking about death, itself. I had a roommate, as an undergrad, who was terrified of dying. Absolutely terrified. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[gluadys]

This is wrong, though. If a theological frame of reference does not meet our understanding of the physical world, we have two options:
1. Our theological frame of reference is mistaken (in this case, Christianity)
or
2. Our understanding of the physical world is mistaken (in this case, all life sharing a common ancestor)

Actually, you are agreeing with me. Any apparent conflict between the physical world and theology must be resolved by determining which of them is true. We can keep our theological framework intact if we show that our understanding of the physical world is mistaken. But if it turns out that we are not mistaken in our understanding of the physical world, then it is the theological framework that must be revised.

I'm asking the theistic evolution, who believes both in Christianity and in Darwinian Evolution, how they can unite both this theological framework with their understanding of the physical world.


Precisely. I'm asking here how you can unite theology with what you claim are the facts. Not to wave it away.

See my earlier post.

Regarding the facts, that is something it may be worth me discussing with you sometime.

Yes, that's always fun.

As I said earlier, and I've reiterated in my last post, the idea of death in general is described as undesirable and not God's intention. Not just for humans, but for animals also.

I think the latter point is not well established by scripture, and cannot be since it denies the fact that many species lived and became extinct before humans ever lived. Animal death before humanity existed is a fact. Hence scripture cannot be validly interpreted to deny that fact.

Otherwise the Scriptures would not say that death entered the world through sin, and that by Adam. And if you say this refers to spiritual death alone, I have already mentioned why I believe spiritual death an insufficient explanation.

I think, for the reason already given, that this must refer only to human death. Nor do I think it is only spiritual death. Physical death is also involved, not in the sense that there was no physical death earlier, but in the sense that physical death is different for humans because of the fall. Not biologically, but emotionally, intellectually, ontologically and spiritually.

Either death did enter the world through sin, or it is a natural state of affairs, and what God intended or permitted before man had sinned.

God clearly did permit plant and animal and other non-human death before the fall. I expect God knew the characteristics of biological life--i.e. that it necessarily entails biological death--so that we must also take it as God's intention at least for non-human life.

This assumes, contrary to Scripture, two things:
1. That death is God's passageway into mortality (Which raises even greater questions such as why we must live in a universe and suffer and die before we can experience the good - I assume that death was painful before the fall as it is now after the fall. why a universe of suffering and death was created if it was not intended as our abode in the long run - why create a new heaven and a new earth, as promised in revelation? how is it that Elijah and Enoch did not have to die?)
2. Suffering, pain, sorrow, are all natural and not at all undesirable states of affairs

In fact, the idea of death being a gateway into the afterlife makes this life sound like a trial or a test. It reminds me strongly of Mormonism which sees life as exactly that - we are the offspring of God, and our immortal preborn spirits chose to come here, knowing of the trials that God has set in place in this universe of sufferring. Those who pass in spades will be resurrected into the greatest glory.

I won't argue this, as it was an idea off the top of my head thrown out for discussion that I am not committed to.

It does not mesh with the Christian idea in Scriptures that death is an unnatural state of affairs. It does not mesh with the idea that our current bodies are corrupted,

Scripture does not say that our current bodies are corrupted. It says they are mortal and corruptible i.e. they die and after death they decay. We do not normally live in corrupted bodies. Maybe if one has contracted the ebola virus, one might say a living body is corrupted, but that is a special case, not the norm.

"What science is" is a philosophical question.
You speak of science as though it is an entity or a philosophy itself, which it is not.

My bad. I tend to say "science" as shorthand for "the current scientific consensus". This is the set of conclusions drawn from empirical experiments and studies.

Two scientists may practice science and hold different conclusions.

And if the community of scientists cannot come to an agreement as to which (if either) of them is right, then "science" makes no pronouncement on the matter. It holds its judgement in abeyance until further information clarifies the situation.

But if the community of scientists--especially those with expertise in the same field--concludes from the evidence that one is right and the other wrong, then we have a consensus which it will take strong falsifying evidence to dislodge.

Thus, when you say "Science does not hold that life began as a single organism" you are really talking about conclusions drawn by people from the results of various scientific experiments.

Correct as far as it goes. One should add that the people came to the same or similar conclusions because the results of the various scientific experiments were the same or very similar. It is this predictability and repeatability of results that solidifies a consensus.

I very much dislike people setting up science on a pedestal as though it is some sort of teacher. It is a process for obtaining truth, and it is not the only such process to do so.

I have absolutely no problem with the scientific process.

Agreed.

I have examined the theory of evolution in quite a lot of detail in the past, and found it wanting as an explanation of the origin of life.

As well you should. Evolution is not and has never been a theory about the origin of life. But it is rather silly to discard a theory because it does not explain what it never claimed to explain.

 

[gluadys]

It also rebukes Gluadys' idea that death is the passageway into immortality. I believe that humans already possess immortal spirits. Whether or not we sinned, our spirit will live forever. What salvation grants us is eternal life - life with a resurrected body in a new, physical earth.

As I stated earlier, the idea that in humans natural death is a passageway to immortal life, was a spur of the moment idea. I did not think it through, and I am not committed to it, so I will not attempt to defend it.

However, I do take issue with the notion that humans possess immortal spirits and that this spirit will live forever whether we sin or no. This introduces a Greek philosophical dualism into Christianity which I believe is inconsistent with the biblical understanding of the unity of body and spirit.

God is the source of life. When sin separates us from God we are cut off from life in spirit as much as, if not more than, in body. The spirit, like the body, can only live again in the resurrection.

 

[shernren]

That's a pretty interesting idea. Why do you think plants have "the breath of life" while animals don't?

After all, plants perform respiration. In fact, performing both respiration and photosynthesis at once I think they might perform more gas exchange, gram-per-gram of biomass, than animals.

What's the boundary between nephesh and non-nephesh (to use AiG "technical" terms)? After all, we are not given a clear line to draw in Scripture. At first I proposed that nephesh animals are vertebrates while non-nephesh animals are not. But while writing this I just realized that the giant squid, had any Jew seen it, would probably qualify as nephesh, and they are definitely invertebrates (albeit large and complicated ones).

My bigger question is this:

If animal death is a result of the Fall where in the Bible is it said so?

 

[jereth]

I don't really consider myself a YEC - though I once did, and I'm closer to it than I am to TE.

Tyreth, the comments in my post weren't directed towards you personally. I apologise if it felt like a personal attack. It's just that you appeared to be using an extremely well-worn YEC argument which really gets under my skin. Thanks anyway for taking the time to respond.

Your overly hostile nature forgets that there is nothing truly wrong with posing challenges for others and seeing if they can answer. We test each others beliefs in order to obtain the truth.

Again, I apologise for what may have seemed a personal attack. I agree with you that we can grow mutually by challenging each other. The source of my ire, as I said above, is the steady stream of "abuse" that we cop from YECs because of our belief that animals died before the fall.

It's pretty simple really. On the question of death (and the suffering that results from it) the Bible is pretty clear: Death entered the world after sin.

I assume you are quoting/paraphrasing Romans 5:12. But this text says: "death spread to all men". If you read the context, Paul is definitely discussing the human condition here. You still have to show me a Bible text which says that "death spread to animals through sin". (I suspect you won't be able to.)

Plant death is different. Genesis describes the breath of life as being in animals and humans, not plants.

Yes the Bible does say animals have "the breath of life" while plants do not. But how does it logically follow that animals were immortal in the beginning? It doesn't. You are making an artificial connection: namely, "if something had the breath of life, it was originally immortal". The Bible does not make this connection.

I would suggest that what sets apart the naturally immortal from the naturally mortal is not "the breath of life", but "the image of God". This is something that humans possess but nothing else (neither plants nor animals).

Plants are a different order of creation alltogether. They feel no sufferring or pain, have no thoughts.

You are being arbitrary. "Suffering", "pain" and "thoughts" are not qualities that organisms either have or do not have. These qualities are possessed in varying degrees. Dogs experience a greater degree of "suffering, pain and thoughts" than fish; fish experience a greater degree than flies; flies experience a greater degree than starfish. All of the above are animals. In fact, a starfish arguably has about the same cognitive abilities as a plant.

So, in order to be consistent with your argument, you must draw a line across the animal kingdom somewhere, and say that on one side of the line death is acceptable, while on the other side death is unacceptable. (Something like the AiG "nephesh" idea.) This undermines your position.

Death is always seen as something unnatural.

Death of humans is always seen as unnatural. Where do you find a verse saying that animal death is unnatural?

But [animals] have no immortal spirit to redeem. If an animal dies it returns to dust and that is its end. If a human dies then his immortal spirit lives on.

I believe that you are undermining your own argument here. Earlier on, you united humanity and animals on the basis of "the breath of life". Now you are making a distinction between them on the basis of the immortal spirit. Are animals equivalent to humans or not?

And human experience testifies to this too, that animal death is not what ought to be.

Human experience, yes. But not Scripture.

If [the Genesis story] is a metaphor, and the reality is that humans ate animals, and animals ate animals, animals killed humans, and suffering was rampant - then what was the author of Genesis trying to portray by talking about this ideal world that never existed?

The world was ideal because men and women were sinless, and they lived in harmony with God, with each other and with all creation. I personally am able to imagine a perfect world without crime, without poverty, without war, without violence, without hunger, without selfishness, without dishonesty, without cruelty. If animals died in this world, that would not so much as put a dent in its perfection.

* Why does Genesis describe an idealic world void of sufferring and death,

It doesn't. Where does Genesis say that animals did not die or experience pain?

* Why does it describe a world where animals and humans live in harmony? What does this represent, what is it trying to say?

In a sinless world, humans would not commit acts of cruelty or unnecessary violence towards animals. Similarly, animals would not harm humans. This does not exclude animals preying on each other, or humans killing animals in a controlled and reasonable way (eg. for the purpose of food.)

* Why do the Scriptures have a clear symmetry between before the fall (an ideal world void of sufferring and death in Genesis) and after the return of our Saviour (where the child plays with lions and snakes, and they do not harm each other as in Isaiah 11)?

This has been dealt with elsewhere. Briefly, I do not think Isaiah 11 is necessarily a picture of heaven, and it certainly is not a picture of the pre-fall world.

I've written more here:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/jereth/jereth/genesis&origins/death_before_curse.html

The garden itself must be symbolic if TE's are correct, so the plant itself cannot be literal either.

Yes, I believe the garden and its trees were symbolic. This doesn't mean they were meaningless. Symbols have meaning.

* Why does God show Adam naming all the animals first, and being unable to find a comparable partner? Why is it He then creates Eve? What does this tell us, and why is it in the story?

It is an elegant and beautiful depiction of the loving relationship between husband and wife.

The start of Genesis seems to me to be a confusing and irrelevant story with very little to do with the core meaning. It would have been far simpler for the author to write:

Simpler, but not nearly as rich, compelling or elegant.

But if TE is true, then I can find a world with very little different today than what it was before the fall.

Are you serious? Before the fall, there was no violence, murder, rape, incest, cruelty, theft, dishonesty, hunger, poverty, war, exploitation, greed, idolatry, hatred, injustice..... So what if animals died? Do you really think that animal death is such a big deal that it overshadows all the rest of these things?

Tyreth, you have obviously put a lot of thought into this issue. I respect you for that. But my wish is that you could appreciate the fact that Christianity isn't shattered if we believe that animals died before the fall. I hope my answers help.