Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

[mhess13]

Evolution is not compatible with the Bible.

There could not have been millions of years of death before sin.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned


MAN introduced death into the world because of sin

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

If evolution is true, slow gradual changes over millions of years of death brought man into the world. The Bible and evolution are teaching 2 different things. Note that the Bible calls death an enemy.

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

When reading 1COR15 you can clearly see that PHYSICAL death is being discussed and it is described as an enemy that Christ has defeated through his resurrection. PRAISE HIM!
So then you cannot have death in the world (as evolution teaches) millions of years before Adam's sin. BOTH EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE CANNOT BE TRUE-they teach different things!

Rom 8:18-19 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Because of death and sin the whole creation is futile according to the Bible.


Rom 8:20-22 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

But we know that during the Millennial Reign of Christ Or if you are an amillennialist during the new heavens and the new earth; the creation will be restored. DEATH because of sin is what wrecked the creation.



So what does the theistic evolutionist propose? They will say that plants died before the fall of man. But plants are not alive in a Biblical sense. They are a self replicating food source. The haven't got the breath of life and they have no blood. Plants are never spoken of as dying in scripture. They fade and wither, but never die in the sense as humans and animals. All animals and man were vegetarians in the Garden, humans were not to eat meat until after the flood. This further proves that death was not part of God's original creation, but was an enemy, an intruder, brought in by sin.
Furthermore, insects may not even be alive in a biblical sense-I don't know. That's a good topic to study up on.

What theistic evolutionists are really saying is that sickness, disease, death and suffering were here long before sin. What does this make God? How can we explain cancer, gout, heart disease? With the theistic evolution model and logic, this suffering and sickness was part of God's very good creation. Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden standing on top of thousands of fossils buried in the dirt. Adam and Eve were both destined to die physically even prior to their spiritual separation from God. Is this what the Bible teaches?

However, when we believe that death and sickness were brought on because of sin, a light clicks. It makes sense that God is good and didn't create us to be sick and die. The effects of the Fall were enormous! We begin to see sin as it is. We see the ugliness and destructive nature of disobedience to God. We then have hope of the glorious resurrection and the restoration of all things through the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

THEISTIC evolution seriously downplays the fall of man. Without a clear understanding of how huge the Fall was, how can we fully grasp the work of the atonement? Evolution wars against the plan of salvation.

http://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id49.html

 

[Milla]

Whatever. All theistic evolution says is that God created macroevolution, too.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You are conflating two different but similiar things.

The first is AiG's swan song of 'no death before the fall' which has been refuted here several times. The other, more important issue is theodicy, or the origin of evil in the world. Don't confuse the two. AiG's intention with it's concentration on 'no death before the fall' is to confuse this issue with theodicy so that the problem of theodicy appears to be particular to TE, it is not. It is perhaps the most important argument against a personal, powerful, all knowing God and drives several of the more important current varieties of not-Christian thought posing as Christian like open theology. (but that is for another forum)

To dismiss the false notion of no death before the fall you have several important things to look at:

1-how would Adam have known what the curse meant if he didn't see death? it would be simply an empty hollow word.

2-if Jesus' sacrifice undoes physical death then why isn't my pet dog saved? he has the breath of life, is a vertebrate, etc etc.

3-if Jesus' sacrifice undoes physical human death then why did all the apostles die and all Christians since then?

It takes some time and effort to work through the issues, but i expect that a close examination of AiG's no death before the fall will convince anyone that the curse means the separation of body and soul which is just one symptom of physical death in human beings alone, being the only creature in the image of God and possessing a soul. It the final resurrection body and soul will be knit back together again and human beings will rise from the dead, not the animals. So the parallel stills follows of pre lapsarian and post-judgement, it is not destroyed as you are contending, just limited to human beings and not some subset of the animal kingdom.

Essentially the death of any life other than man has no ethical or moral catagory, for only man possesses the necessary components for this.

i wrote a longer essay on the topic at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/deathfall.html

and i am reluctant to repost it here. but AiG is simply wrong from a Biblical viewpoint.

now the problem of theodicy, that is entirely different.

...

 

[herev]

wow, I wish someone would have just told me this before, I guess I can convert now to YEC

 

[PaladinValer]

mhess, we've been through this over and over again and again...

 

[gluadys]

Whatever. All theistic evolution says is that God created macroevolution, too.

Right.

btw would you mind translating your signature for us?

 

[SBG]

To dismiss the false notion of no death before the fall you have several important things to look at:

1-how would Adam have known what the curse meant if he didn't see death? it would be simply an empty hollow word.

Genesis 3:19
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Here God tells Adam what death is, returning to the ground of that which he was taken. For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Notice God did not just say death, but explained what it is to Adam.

2-if Jesus' sacrifice undoes physical death then why isn't my pet dog saved? he has the breath of life, is a vertebrate, etc etc.

I think you aware that Jesus Christ's death was for salvation of all mankind. Meaning for those who will believe and follow will receive His gift of salvation. This is only to mankind.

And Paul speaks very dogmatically on a physical ressurection of the body. For if we never truly lose the body, then it never truly dies.

3-if Jesus' sacrifice undoes physical human death then why did all the apostles die and all Christians since then?

Are all the Apostles dead? There bodies are in a state of sleep, for they will be raised again. Their souls are at worship, worshipping the Mighty Creator.

It takes some time and effort to work through the issues, but i expect that a close examination of AiG's no death before the fall will convince anyone that the curse means the separation of body and soul which is just one symptom of physical death in human beings alone, being the only creature in the image of God and possessing a soul. It the final resurrection body and soul will be knit back together again and human beings will rise from the dead, not the animals. So the parallel stills follows of pre lapsarian and post-judgement, it is not destroyed as you are contending, just limited to human beings and not some subset of the animal kingdom.

Essentially the death of any life other than man has no ethical or moral catagory, for only man possesses the necessary components for this.

i wrote a longer essay on the topic at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/deathfall.html

and i am reluctant to repost it here. but AiG is simply wrong from a Biblical viewpoint.

now the problem of theodicy, that is entirely different.

...

Not as much time as you might have anticipated. Death of the body means it will never live again. Truth be told, our bodies will live again.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I think you aware that Jesus Christ's death was for salvation of all mankind

i am Reformed, the L in TULIP is limited atonement.
so no, i am not aware that Jesus' death was for all mankind, i am not a universalist, Jesus died for the elect, only. but that again is another forum *grin*


Genesis 3:19
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Here God tells Adam what death is, returning to the ground of that which he was taken. For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Notice God did not just say death, but explained what it is to Adam.

this is post lapsarian. it says nothing about the command not to eat on penalty of death. plus it is not an explanation of death. (post-edit, it is a description of death not a definition of what it is)

 

[seebs]

There's a sticky thread for this forum titled "Look Here".

I would ask that everyone review it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This issue of 'death before the fall' is such an interesting one that i'd like to take a moment and look it.

It is such an easy argument to deflect that i am actually surprised that AiG makes such a big deal about it. If you look at the command of God to Adam not to eat of the tree something else emerges from the context that is a much better argument against TE. I have often wondered why AiG doesn't switch to it.

If death must be something that Adam is familiar with in order for the command's sanctions to have meaning, the converse is a problem. If Adam is the result in some way of evolutionary processes then he is aware of death and deals in a culture that is aware of death. Then the command's sanctions are not of sufficient force, since Adam would already be expecting to die as did his ancestors. This is a far stronger criticism of TE then the 'no death before the fall'.

...

 

[Calminian]

I think you aware that Jesus Christ's death was for salvation of all mankind

i am Reformed, the L in TULIP is limited atonement.
so no, i am not aware that Jesus' death was for all mankind, i am not a universalist, Jesus died for the elect, only. but that again is another forum *grin*

Sorry I can't resist. Atonement and salvation are two different things IMO. Even the wicked generation of Israel was atoned for at Sinai before they were shown to be unbelieving at the borders of Canaan. In the book of Hebrews this opportunity to overtake the Canaanites was likened the the gospel (Hebrews 4:2). Alright I'm done. I feel better.

Genesis 3:19
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Here God tells Adam what death is, returning to the ground of that which he was taken. For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Notice God did not just say death, but explained what it is to Adam.

this is post lapsarian. it says nothing about the command not to eat on penalty of death. plus it is not an explanation of death. (post-edit, it is a description of death not a definition of what it is)

Okay, so it was post lapsarian. I think the point is, why would it be so difficult for God to explain death to Adam? They walked and they talked together before the fall. I mean you could either learn about death by experience or by someone explaining it to you, right? Why should I (or AiG for that matter) see this as a problem?

 

[TheReasoner]

It would seem to me that evolution is an unproven theory regarded by many pretty much as a religious belief upon which their entire view/perception of reality is based.
I agree with you. But I think we'll find very few outside the churches who are willing to even lend an ear to this.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I think the point is, why would it be so difficult for God to explain death to Adam? They walked and they talked together before the fall. I mean you could either learn about death by experience or by someone explaining it to you, right? Why should I (or AiG for that matter) see this as a problem?

because it makes no sense for God to stipulate sanctions when Adam has no knowledge of what those sanctions mean. Look at how difficult it is for us to even define death. How is God going to explain the sanctions for violating the command if Adam has never ever seen death? no, it is a big problem for AiG's type of argument, enough in my mind to dismiss the whole problem. For the forbidden fruit to have the burden it carries theologically Adam must be well aware of what the command meant and what the sanctions and promises meant.

here is one of the articles from AiG on the topic:

So a blood sacrifice is only necessary if there is sin. The rest of the Old Testament has similar treatment of sacrifice for atonement. If there was animal death before the fall of man, then God and all those who followed His pattern did useless acts. One must observe that in the atonement the animal loses its life in the place of the human. If animal death existed before the fall, then the object lesson represented by the atoning sacrifice is in reality a cruel joke.

from: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-191.htm

look carefully at the logic.
if a lion eats its prey, this is a type of sacrifice, nonsense. Again, animals kill and animals eat each other and this has no moral implications whatsoever. Only man is a moral being period. Look at how he confuses the issue of bloody sacrifice with animal death. The problem is not just sloppy thinking, but a deeper confusion brought on by trying to prove more than the Bible itself contends for. To go beyond Scripture as in moral demands like temperance is just as bad a violation of the integrity of revelation as is taking it too lightly.

Everytime a human being kills an animal is not a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross anymore then every animals death is a archtypic OT sacrifice on the altar in Jerusalem. It is this great overstretching of the Biblical narrative that is backing AiG and YECist in general into a corner. It is this type of thinking that has many people believing that all carnivores became so after the fall. and like this quote, just plain sloppy thinking which is driven by extrabiblical high order committments like anti-evolutionism.

.....

 

[Milla]

Right.

btw would you mind translating your signature for us?

Sure. It's the last verse of the poem Parus by Lermontov. It's something like, "And he, rebellious, seeks out the tempest/as though in tempests he could find peace". Sounds better in Russian, of course.

 

[gluadys]

Sure. It's the last verse of the poem Parus by Lermontov. It's something like, "And he, rebellious, seeks out the tempest/as though in tempests he could find peace". Sounds better in Russian, of course.

Most things sound best in their original language. But that sounds great in English too.

 

[Calminian]

because it makes no sense for God to stipulate sanctions when Adam has no knowledge of what those sanctions mean.

I (and all YECs) believe Adam did have knowledge of death.

Look at how difficult it is for us to even define death.

But in ANE culture there was no ambiguity. Death had more of a separation aspect—separation of the spirit from the body, a relational separation of man from God, separating yourself from old habits, etc.. In more modern times the definition of death has a different meaning—the end or the ceasing to exist. But that's nothing Adam would have been confused by.

How is God going to explain the sanctions for violating the command if Adam has never ever seen death?

I'm at a loss as to why you think this was too difficult a task for God. As a young child I understood death and never saw it directly. It seems you're saying death can only be understood by direct observation through the eyes. In order to believe what you're saying I would have to believe that God who walked and talked with Adam could not convey the idea of death to him even though their relationship was perfect and Adam's mind was unfallen. That's is quite a difficult line of logic to follow.

It is this type of thinking that has many people believing that all carnivores became so after the fall. and like this quote, just plain sloppy thinking which is driven by extrabiblical high order committments like anti-evolutionism.

Personally I believe there were post fall modifications to men, animals and plants after the fall, but it has nothing to do with the sacrificial issue. Genesis is explicit that at the time of the fall, God effected many physical and mental changes in many of his creatures. Do you disagree?

That’s off topic though. The main thing I want you to explain is why the omniscient God of the universe would be inadequate in explaining and conveying the concept of death to an unfallen mind. This is boggling my mind.

 

[gluadys]

Personally I believe there were post fall modifications to men, animals and plants after the fall, but it has nothing to do with the sacrificial issue. Genesis is explicit that at the time of the fall, God effected many physical and mental changes in many of his creatures. Do you disagree?

Yes, I do disagree. I have not seen a biblical basis for this assertion.

 

[gluadys]

There could not have been millions of years of death before sin.

But there was. That is the fact that has to be dealt with.

What theistic evolutionists are really saying is that sickness, disease, death and suffering were here long before sin. What does this make God? How can we explain cancer, gout, heart disease? With the theistic evolution model and logic, this suffering and sickness was part of God's very good creation. Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden standing on top of thousands of fossils buried in the dirt. Adam and Eve were both destined to die physically even prior to their spiritual separation from God. Is this what the Bible teaches?

Since death before the fall is a fact, the bible either teaches it or lies.

THEISTIC evolution seriously downplays the fall of man. Without a clear understanding of how huge the Fall was, how can we fully grasp the work of the atonement?

Not so. I think the fall is real and is huge and explains much of the evil and suffering in the world. I think the fall did affect creation through its effect on humans and we are very much seeing that in the ecological crises of today. I think the spiritual separation of God and humanity is the basis of the separation of humans from humans and the cause of hostilities and wars and oppression. It is also the cause of internal psychological separation of humans from their very selves, and a root of all sorts of moral, mental and spiritual disorders.

And the atonement is the way to healing all of these separations.

Evolution wars against the plan of salvation.

I see the plan of salvation fully intact with evolution. Evolution does not change at all the facts of sin, fall, need for redemption, atonement and salvation in Christ.

 

[gluadys]

never mind. already covered.

 

[Calminian]

Yes, I do disagree. I have not seen a biblical basis for this assertion.

You don't believe the snake in the garden was modified? You don't believe thorns & thistles were modifications? You don't believe the soil was modified? You don't believe Eve was modified in that she would experience birth pain after the fall (which most mammals experience). You don't see the fear of man being put into animals after the fall? All of these imply physiological changes. Since the snake is said to be cursed above all other animals I have to conclude he wasn't alone in being modified, but rather experienced the most symbolically significant change (being brought down low to the ground). It would seem to me the only modification that would make sense in bringing him down on his belly would be the removal of appendages. BTW, ever notice depictions of chinese dragons? They look like snakes with legs.