Theistic Evolution

[HamletsChoice]

Based on recent discussion in the reformed threads it seems like many are rejecting the official Catholic and liberal protestant doctrine of theistic evolution. I thought I would post a simple refutation of theistic evolution. Can any reformed Christians add to these great points?

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THEISTIC​

EVOLUTION?​

Bert Thompson, Ph.D.​

1. Theistic evolution is wrong because there is no theistic statement which shows it to be true.

God never said He used evolution to create. In fact, he said just the opposite. God could have accomplished the origin of life in any way He chose, by evolution or by creation, but an admission that there is a God and that He made such an accomplishment in any way, means that we are totally dependent upon His revelation to determine which way. His revelation declares creation, not evolution.​

The texts of the Bible (Genesis 1-2; Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17, et al.) plainly teach fiat creation and do not even hint of any kind of evolutionary process. God said He used creation; that settles it!​

2. Theistic evolution is wrong because it makes a liar out of Jesus Christ.​

Jesus stated in Mark 10:6 (cf.: Matthew 19:4): “But from the beginning of the creation male and female made he them.” Jesus affirmed that Adam and Eve had been on the earth “from the beginning of the creation.” Paul affirmed in Romans 1:20-21 that the things God had made were being “perceived” even “since the creation of the world.” Who was there to “perceive” these things “since the creation of the world”? Moses told us. Paul told us. Adam and Eve were their names. Jesus affirmed their status here on the Earth “from the beginning of the creation.” If the evolutionists are so, it does not take very much intelligence to figure out that four million years out of an alleged Earth history of 4.6 billion years is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “from the beginning.” Rather, it is “from the end.” The choice is this: either Jesus lied and evolutionists are correct, or Jesus told the truth and evolution is wrong. To accept any part of evolution makes Jesus Christ a liar (not to mention Moses and Paul).​

3. Theistic evolution is wrong because it cannot explain Eve.​

This problem has haunted theistic evolutionists since the very inception of their theory. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God put Adam to sleep and took from his side material from which he made woman. (Genesis 2:21-23.) Eve is even named by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:13 as being a real, historical character. Yet evolution says that the sexes evolved, simultaneously, in the same geographical region—with one being male and one being female. There is nothing similar in the two incidents. How will the theistic evolutionist explain this “problem of Eve”? Most theistic evolutionists, when faced with this problem, attempt to “do away” with Eve by making the first eleven chapters of Genesis mythological or allegorical—anything but true, literal history. Yet this at the same time has far-reaching consequences. For example, Abraham, father of the Hebrew race, is mentioned in chapter 11 of Genesis. Was Abraham mythical? And what about the Flood of Noah in Genesis 6-8? Was it mythical? Peter didn’t think so; he referred to it in 2 Peter 3 as being a real, historical event. Was the tower of Babel figurative and allegorical? If so, whence have the various languages come? Furthermore, Paul mentions Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45, and compares himto the “last Adam” (Jesus!). If the first Adam was mythical, is the last?​

4. Theistic evolution is wrong because it logically denies the fall of man.​

The Bible makes it clear that man started on the Earth in a covenant relationship with God (Genesis 1-2). Genesis 3 then tells of the breaking, by man, of that covenant, and his need for a Redeemer to bring him back into a covenant relationship with the Creator. Evolution says that man did not start out at the top and then fall to the bottom, but instead started at the bottom as primordial slime and through the eons of geological time has “risen.” Which one is true? Did man start at the top, or did he start at the bottom?

5. Theistic evolution is wrong because the Bible teaches catastrophism; evolution teaches uniformitarianism.​

Over and over again the Bible speaks of catastrophic events (the Flood of Genesis 6-8; the plagues of Egypt in Exodus 7ff.; etc.). The miraculous is an intrinsic part of the Bible. On the other hand, evolution requires uniformitarianism with its trite phrase, “the present is the key to the past,” as its watchword. Evolution states emphatically that all things are going on today just like they always have and always will. The Bible plainly denies this. The resurrection of Christ is enough to send evolution to its grave once and for all.​

6. Theistic evolution is wrong because it cannot explain where man acquired his soul.​

To be consistent evolutionists, theistic evolutionists must maintain that the image of God, in man, was evolved. If they call on God and a miracle to get the image of God in man, why so hesitant to call on God and a miracle for the giving of the life of the body to a physical body formed of the dust of the earth? Their nontheistic evolutionistic colleagues will not find the creation of the image of God in man any more acceptable than the creation of the body of man. What do theistic evolutionists affirm of the origin of the image of God?​

This problem, of course, has plagued theistic evolutionists for centuries. Because of it, the fallacious doctrines of “progressive creationism” and “threshold evolution” were invented—yet without success.The Bible plainly states that God created man in the image of God, and gave him a soul. Did that soul evolve along with all the other parts? How will the theistic evolutionist get a soul into man?​

​

 

[arunma]

I personally don't think that theistic evolutionists are "bad Christians" (provided that all of their other doctrines are orthdox), but I do think that TE is bad theology, and I do not think it is very healthy for the church. The best argument I've heard for literal, Biblical creation is that the Bible portrays a God who takes an active role in creation, whereas TE purports a God who makes a creation which creates itself.

Now, to some extent, it is logical to believe in a creation which does many things on its own. Indeed we see this in everyday life, since the earth's environment is designed to maintain itself through such things as the water cycle, weather patterns, predator-prey interactions, etc (for those of us who believe in Old Earth creation, this can also be applied to the creation of stellar material). But this makes the active creation of man all the more important, since the Bible shows that the creation of man, and of the human soul, was a supernatural event rather than a natural one.

Now I'm no fan of creation/evolution debates but I like the article you've posted, because rather than attempting to make scientific arguments about creation, it simply expounds on what the Bible itself says. If the Bible precludes the possibility of the evolution of man from apes, then we should believe the Bible for that reason alone.

 

[HamletsChoice]

Now I'm no fan of creation/evolution debates but I like the article you've posted, because rather than attempting to make scientific arguments about creation, it simply expounds on what the Bible itself says. If the Bible precludes the possibility of the evolution of man from apes, then we should believe the Bible for that reason alone.

Sola Scriptura is exactly why I posted this theistic evolution thread in the reformed forum. If any group s/b YEC's I would have thought that it would be the reformed. I mean young earth creationism is so solidly biblicly based on Sola Scriptura and theistic evolution is so solidly based on Sola Evidentia. However I have noted recently that as the TE and OEC's so-called evidence is being slowly refuted by science these reformed are slowly becoming YEC's, like R.C. Sproul for example. But I ask, what happened to Sola Scriptura?

What I've expeirenced is that there seems to be more YEC's in the arminian conservative evangelical camp than the reformed denominations. This really surprised me! I also believe OEC was born in theistic evolution, which again has no biblical basis, yet many in the reformed camp are OEC's (R.C. Sproul was for a long time). I mean if you don't believe in evolution why would you think God took billions of years to create the earth when He plainly revealed in Sola Scriptura that He took six morning and evening day's? Why would you wait until the evidence of TE or OEC begins to crumble?

Is the answer that many reformed don't want to be out of step with the so-called intellectual camp of the world?

 

[JJB]

In my personal reading of the Down Grade controversy, since I am constantly dumbfounded by what is happening in christendom today, I stumbled upon this:

So we venture to say to any venturesome spirit who wants to follow the Will-with- a-wisp of modern thought, "Don't try it; there are dangerous bogs near, where you may soon lose yourself and all that is dear to you." If anyone wishes to know where the tadpole of Darwinism was hatched, we could point him to the pew of the old chapel in High Street, Shrewsbury, where Mr. Darwin, his father, and we believe his father's father, received their religious training. The chapel was built for Mr. Talents, an ejected minister; but for very many years full-blown Socinianism has been taught there, as also in the old chapel at Chester, where Matthew Henry used to minister, and where a copy of his Commentary, of the original edition, is kept for public use, the only witness, we fear, to the truths he taught there. It is of less importance, but still worthy of note, that the property with which the old High Street church at Shrewsbury was endowed, producing now from £300 to £400 per annum, has long been appropriated to uphold Socinian teaching.


http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg02.htm

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I mean young earth creationism is so solidly biblicly based on Sola Scriptura and theistic evolution is so solidly based on Sola Evidentia.

what is sola Scriptura?
first, it is a denial of the RC doctrine that the Church's pronouncements are on the same level as Scripture.
second, for ours purposes here, it makes a sufficiency claim for Scripture. What kind of sufficiency claim?

That Scripture is a sufficient rule for matters of faith and practice. Following Timothy
the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

sola Scriptura makes a claim that we do not NEED anything else but the Scriptures to accomplish a particular task.

This task is primarily salvation, not exclusively, for certainly the structure of the Church is including, just as certainly the key elements to construct a worldview are included. But nowhere does sola Scriptura make a claim of sufficiency of ALL knowledge.

in fact, an unbeliever makes a point that many Christians in this debate simply don't get

Scientific findings...ought to be judged on their own merits, regardless of the ethical connotations some people might see in them. Ethical choices, OTOH-while they should certainly be informed by the best science available-are too important to be left only in the hands of scientists. ... This confusion between the purposes of science and religion is of course based on the fundamentalists' misunderstanding of their sacred scriptures as not only books on how to live, but also descriptions of how the universe works. By the same token, the, scientific discoveries must describe not only how the world is, but how it should be. This is perhaps the single most tragic mistake repeatedly made by both sides of the debate, though much more often by the religious side than the scientific side.

Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
Massimo Pigliucci
pg 25

the key line is:
but also descriptions of how the universe works.

God has decided to ("has to" seems to strong, He could have done it differently, but did not) accommodate Himself to human means of communication. Part of that is the cultural matrix that includes language, thought patterns, and science-or how the natural world is explained.

in order to give us Scripture God used the worldview of the ancient Hebrews, by necessity this included their cosmology and what we now call science. He USED it to write the Scriptures HE is not teaching it as a binding cosmology on all future believers.

for example, Jacob had his ewes jump over branches to "cause" they to have spotted kids. This is, in part, a scientific statement. Inasmuch as it is such, it is subject to review and understanding by future believers by reading the book of nature to determine if this is a pattern taught and to be emulated ie transculture or a thought pattern used by God and specific to the Hebrews.

This taught/used division is crucial to understanding how we 1000's of years after the writing of Scripture interact with sola Scripture and the very words of Scripture. not all the thought patterns in Scripture are binding on us, not all of them are commands for God: see, believe, understand. Some of them are the packaging of the ideas, some of them are the envelope of the love letter from God to the Church that is Scripture. Just as a lover keeps and honors both the envelope and the letter we preserve and honor the whole Word of God. However that does not mean i have to be a: flat earther, geocentric, solid crystal firmament, pillars of the earth, Hades underneath my feet, Heaven a few miles outside the concentric spheres type of believer. Those are specific to the age that the revelation was given to.

Look again at sola Scriptura. Where is the canon? in history, it is not in Scripture, it is a part of, and is justified in general revelation not special. The index to our Bibles itself is not special revelation, it is general revelation.

Scripture is sufficient to raise up wise Christians, to grow the Church, to form people but it is not complete, it is not sufficient to form worldviews, it is not a guidebook to doing science. Nor does it make any of those claims. Adding to God's word is as prohibited as to subtract from it. Making Genesis 1 into a cosmology science textbook and fighting the Big Bang is adding to God's Word, He never intended us to take it in that manner, it is part of the ANE cosmology and is not binding on my conscious.





note:
i'm leaving for country thunder in florence AZ for the rest of the week.
i am not ignoring replies, i am listening to country music for 4 days.
see you Sunday back here.

 

[frumanchu]

Here's my take on the whole issue.

First, I am a YEC who used to believe firmly in Darwinian macroevolution because that's what I was taught in public schools all throughout my childhood.

Second, my personal view of the theistic evolution movement as a whole is that it is an attempt to compromise in the face of repeated claims of Darwinians against the reliability of the Biblical witness in Genesis and the myth that science cannot lie. I'm not saying that individual Christians who hold to theistic have this as their motivation, only that this view proceeds fully from the scientific claims agains the traditional YEC interpretation of Genesis and not from any clear compulsion from Scripture itself.

Third, it is precisely because this entire argument over creation is constantly couched within the framework of Biblical integrity and reliability, and is heavily and publicly scrutinized by secular society, that this issue is a bigger deal among Christians than it ought to be. I hold the view of creation at the same level as I hold the view of heaven. Scripture speaks mainly in general terms about the nature of our eternal life in Glory with Him, but the important points are clearly given: it is everlasting, it will be joyful, and it is the pinacle of human existence. Likewise, Scripture is not explicitly clear on many of the details of Creation, but the important points are clearly given: it is wholly and unquestioningly the work of God, and it was ordered and designed according to His purpose.

I personally believe the Biblical account in both its order of events and its language supports the YEC position much more strongly than the TE position, but ultimately for me the issue is about as important as that of whether or not we will be cognizant of what is going on on Earth while we are before His face upon death.

 

[HamletsChoice]

Scripture is sufficient to raise up wise Christians, to grow the Church, to form people but it is not complete, it is not sufficient to form worldviews...

I believe you are in complete variance with the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostles and the Prophets here, and maybe that is why you are so easily snookered....you don't/won't say "it is written..." near enough.

 

[JJB]

My befuddlement within Christians circles does not really lie with this issue. I've heard it for several decades now. It was settled in my mind long ago, so I will continue being a "Fool for Christ".

 

[myways]

Scripture is sufficient to raise up wise Christians, to grow the Church, to form people but it is not complete, it is not sufficient to form worldviews, it is not a guidebook to doing science. Nor does it make any of those claims

mswilliams
I think it is important to realize the above truth in general as a high road over the objections nonchristians make such as:
"If Jesus were really so smart, why did He claim that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds, when clearly it isn't?"
or
"If Christianity holds that heaven is a place outside of this physical universe, then why does the Bible describe Jesus' ascention as a literal up in the air, out past the clouds into heaven event?

However, it does not detract from all scientific inferrance that can be made. In other words, if certain theological facts in the Bible are true, then certain other scientific implications must be recognised. Sadly, its so late at night I can only think of one example, which is also my point of contention with the application of the idea that scripture's authority only extends to scriptural matters as to the creation TE debate. And the example is:

God said all through the creation week that creation was "good." Why would He say this about a system of survival of the fittest, which is the exact opposite of God's revealed nature in the sermon on the mount and the accounts of future eternity where death and sickness are defeated and the lion lays down with the lamb.
Have you ever seen a nature show where a zebra stares at its colt as it is torn to peices by lions? No, no. Death entered the world through one man. Physical death too.

Has anyone ever heard of this objection to TE? It's my favorite!

--Dave

 

[cygnusx1]

I am a YEC because I believe it is the view that does justice to the view portrayed in scripture of Creation.

also I don't believe ; trust ; have faith in men , particularly when they pretend that theories are science .

There should be more honesty amongst scientists , they should openly declare that Evolution is a theory , a theory strung together from a mixture of selective evidence and sheer guess work .

 

[HamletsChoice]

I am a YEC because I believe it is the view that does justice to the view portrayed in scripture of Creation.

also I don't believe ; trust ; have faith in men , particularly when they pretend that theories are science .

There should be more honesty amongst scientists , they should openly declare that Evolution is a theory , a theory strung together from a mixture of selective evidence and sheer guess work .

May I pls add that evolution really isn't even a theory.

"Unfortunately, some creationists actually do argue that ‘evolution is just a theory.’ What they usually mean is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ (Therefore, that is what they should say.) The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s theory of relativity and Newton’s theory of gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture."

"The 'theory of ‘evolution' that the evolutionists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent Designer. The evolutionist Kerkut accurately defined this ‘general theory of evolution’ (GTE) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ He continued: ‘The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.’ --(G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p. 157.)"

May I also add that this hypothesis isn't even working!

Source---GREAT ARTICLE!!!--

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter3.asp

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Scripture is sufficient to raise up wise Christians, to grow the Church, to form people but it is not complete, it is not sufficient to form worldviews...

I believe you are in complete variance with the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostles and the Prophets here, and maybe that is why you are so easily snookered....you don't/won't say "it is written..." near enough.

i would be more than happy to investigate the thought with you.

worldviews requires elements from the physical world that isn't in Scripture.

for example:
for me to have a complete worldview i have to know:

who is my wife?
who are my children?
what city do i live in?
what language do i speak?

etc.
none of which are in Scripture.
however i will change my viewpoint if you can show me where this information, which is crucial to my world view is in Scripture.

i eagerly await your instruction.



btw.
the Scriptures themselves make the claim of not being complete:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing
ye might have life through his name.
John 20:30-31

And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which, if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain
the books that should be written. Amen.
John 21:25

quoted from: http://www.biyn.org/importance/solaScriptura.html

...

 

[HamletsChoice]

i would be more than happy to investigate the thought with you.

worldviews requires elements from the physical world that isn't in Scripture.

for example:
for me to have a complete worldview i have to know:

who is my wife?
who are my children?
what city do i live in?
what language do i speak?

etc.
none of which are in Scripture.
however i will change my viewpoint if you can show me where this information, which is crucial to my world view is in Scripture.

i eagerly await your instruction.



btw.
the Scriptures themselves make the claim of not being complete:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing
ye might have life through his name.
John 20:30-31

And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which, if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain
the books that should be written. Amen.
John 21:25

quoted from: http://www.biyn.org/importance/solaScriptura.html

...

Are you serious?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Are you serious?

i'll take this as shorthand for either:
i don't care to discuss the issue
or
i don't understand your point.

in either case you have demonstrating no evidence of a desire to discuss the issues with such a response. thank you for showing your true desires before i had invested too much time in this thread.


i am curious about why come to a discussion board and post such one liners?

if you don't like my example say why.


as a matter of fact. this is the best example of how people must look to the world for elements of their worldview.
and it is exactly what i had in mind when i typed i:
Scripture is sufficient to raise up wise Christians, to grow the Church, to form people but it is not complete, it is not sufficient to form worldviews, it is not a guidebook to doing science. Nor does it make any of those claims.

It also ties in nicely to the feeling that most everyone has about "soulmates" or "spouses are gifts from God". I've argued sola Scriptura for at least 10 years online and since seminary in 1980 and this is one of those rare times that the idea just didn't get through.

o'l well i tried to hold up my end of the conversation.
and gave an opportunity to teach me the errors of my way. i'll just have to keep looking.

 

[myways]

Hey RMWILLIAMAS!!! Look over here!

What about me and my objection to theistic evolution based on the idea that the Bible contradicts TE on theological grounds in addition to the cosmological account

God said all through the creation week that creation was "good." Why would He say this about a system of survival of the fittest, which is the exact opposite of God's revealed nature in the sermon on the mount and the accounts of future eternity where death and sickness are defeated and the lion lays down with the lamb.
Have you ever seen a nature show where a zebra stares at its colt as it is torn to peices by lions? No, no. Death entered the world through one man. Physical death too.

Has anyone ever heard of this objection to TE? It's my favorite!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

death before the fall
comes up so often i wrote a short piece about it....
====>

The issue of 'death before the fall' comes up so often on the evolution creation design boards that i have found in necessary to create and update this essay. the intention is to have a one-stop place to get into the discussion from:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In particular it is this:
AiG on death before the Fall at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20010713_50.asp

I deliberately use one of their pages with the significant Scriptural passages on it, for it must be to Scripture that we address our arguments...

quote:

Some people try to say that this death only refers to man, and not to the animals. However, it is clear from taking the whole of Scripture that animals were vegetarian (like man) before the Fall, and understanding the Biblical doctrine of the atonement (as will be discussed in a future illustration) there could be no animal death or bloodshed before the Fall either.

end of quote--------------

The argument is that theodicy, the problem of evil, occurred in time at the Fall of Adam. The YEC would force OEC(as well as TE) to deal with theodicy before the fall in the fact that some animals must have died in these two views, versus the idea that there was no death at all before the fall in the YEC thinking.

I can't put it any clearly than to boldly state that the death of animals is of NO ETHICAL significance at all.
A person must be involved as in the clothing of Adam and Eve with animal skins by God, or the sacrifice of animals in the OT temple. Animal on animal death and violence has no ethical component at all. Animals can not be held accountable for their actions, therefore to say that the death of animals is ethically bad is missing the points of ethics. Ethics is purely a system of behavior to be modelled on God's behavior and imposed on man's. Without a PERSON either God or man, there can be no ethical conduct. The deaths of animals is neither good nor evil, it is simply a-moral, a-ethical. period.

Adam's disobedience was an ethical statement, as such it was evil, a willing disobedience towards a clear command of his Creator and God.
As such the penalty was immediate spiritual death, followed by a physical death as a direct result of the sins Adam committed. First the fall then all the rest of the dirty, nasty little things he did thereafter. In the fall, Adam lost the supernatural, but human ability to will. From now on, both Adam and all his posterity were unable to will to follow God but rather actively sought to disobey God. Sin stems from a sinnner's heart, we sin because we are sinner's.

The immediate response ought to be that God declared the world 'Good' at each days's creative activites, how could the death of animals at any point be good?

The answer is that the Good in creation is as it relates to the actor, to the person of God. God declares the creation, as distinct for Him to be good. This is not to say that every relationship within the creation is somehow moral and good. Relationships between the things of creation are without ethical content. The rocks, the stars etc are not good in and of themselves but rather good in their relationship to God and later in the relationship to mankind. Good is an ethical catagory for persons, for actors with moral responsibility. The second way that God pronounces the Creation good is certainly the way He did the work. This is a good work. It has reference to God as Creator, He is responsible for the goodness of the activity. Like when i finish this essay, i think that i did a good work in defending my position. That does not mean that the work in itself is good, ethical speaking. But that the work i put into the essay is good, good as it contacts and flows from my mind through my fingers. The ethics is always rooted into a person. That is why the fact of a lion killing and eating a young antelope is of no ethical significance. Neither the lion nor the antelope are ethical actors, to be held accountable for their actions in any way. Therefore the death of one, and the subsequent continuing living of the other has no goodness as do our actions.

quote:

1 Corinthians 15:26 calls death an enemy. Death is an intrusion. Some try to make out that this death is only 'spiritual' death and not 'physical' death. However, the Bible verses cited make it clear that Christ's death on the Cross is related to the death that came into the world because of the first man's sin. This was a physical death. When Adam sinned, man died spiritually in the sense that he was separated from God, and he also began to die physically.

end of quote--------------

It is spiritual death followed by a actual physical death as a direct result of 1-spiritual death 2-actual sins committed. both kinds of death of a responsible person are seen. If you argue as the YEC do that in Adam all livings things died, then in Christ would all living things come alive. Simply NOT true, neither part. Christ's death was for His elect alone, not all mankind, not all living creatures. again period.

but i think the YEC know this, for they do not propose that your child's favorite cat join us in heaven, they know better than to argue such nonsense in theology. They save their nonsense for the science side of the arguments. The argument that an old earth position is wrong because it requires death before the fall and this is wrong is actually a smokescreen for a larger argument; which is to force the issue of theodicy on the OEC before the Fall in time. This is so first because theodicy is perhaps the hardest problem in theology to deal with, second it is in a significant way unsolvable, so by making it a subtopic in the OEC system they hope to derail the OEC into solving the unsolvable as a means to building their complete answer to the question of origins.

I won't take their bait. The death spoken of in Genesis, Romans, and Corinithians is spiritual death first, followed by physical death. Both, in order, in a significant cause and effect order. Spiritual death and sin CAUSES physical death. Death is a significant experience, death is an ethical catagory ONLY for persons, not animals. To believe otherwise is to completely 'spread' the cause of the death of Christ across all living creatures, not just people, let alone the elect.

quote:

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

end of quote------


No it is not obvious. The whole push the the argument, into Gen 9:3 is towards mankind. The fact that God gives the green things to animals to eat may very well be the same way that we speak of cows as grass on the hoof. There is no reason to believe that all animals must be vegetarians from this statement. Nor it is the general consensus of the Church that this is so. You can prove human vegetarianism as do the Seventh Day Adventist from these verses if you desire, but not all animals. But literally i don't care if you desire vegetarian lions until the fall have at it. It doesn't change the argument the ethics is person based not animal. Besides if you eliminate carnivous, the OEC have a LOT less death to justify before the Fall anyhow.

My whole argument is that the evolutionary mechanism that created the living world as we know it, fits just fine into the Biblical creation two tablet origins story as told in Genesis 1 and 2. Creation is a good work by God, the death of animals is of no moral concern as long as persons are not involved. The fall explains theodicy in as far as it is explanable in terms of moral responsible actors- persons not animals.

a continuing conversation:

> Romans 8:22 "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and
travaileth in
> pain together until now."
>
> After Adam's sin the Earth "groaneth and travaileth in
>pain". We
> know that God did not create such an earth that "groaneth and
>travaileth in
> pain" because God told us in Genesis that all he had done "was
>good". Something
> happened between the end of day six when God said it is GOOD and the
> creation that "groaneth and travaileth in pain". It was sin, the sin of
> Adam. It corrupted the whole of creation.
>


it is a long way from a fallen creation to the assertion that the
animals were originally created as vegetarian on day 5 or 6 then
re-created as carnivores just after Adam's fall. a big gap.

but there is nothing in your verses as quoted that persuade me that
Scripture teaches that animal death can not precede Adam's fall.

Everything seems to teach the opposite, that death is significant only
for humanity. as commonly defined in Christian theology death is
defined as the separation of body and soul/spirit with the
decomposition of the body, and the transport of the soul/spirit
somewhere else. the significance of death as the punishment for sins
only makes sense if it is only applied to Adam's sin and his
posterity, he as federal head. Otherwise you end up with a general
living things universalism, certainly not what you desire. Having your
pet cat in heaven is maybe a nice thing to tell a young child but
certainly bad theology.

I can assert, as you have Paul teaching in Roman's that creation is
under the curse. but that this includes the status of animal death as
evil as a result of sin is yet to be shown. Simply asserting it is not
sufficent to persuade.


>One can not RESTORE creation to a state in which it has NEVER
>been that being free from death.

snip more name calling and poisoning the well thinking.

the restoration of the world after Revelation has been accomplished is
in fact better than the primal world, the proof i submit is that God
did it this way. that is, in some very significant, very serious way
God desired the suffering, death, etc that the world has gone through,
is going through, will go through until the end of time, IN ORDER that
something better emerges from it. I trust God knows what He is doing.

I can only believe, with scant proof from Scriptures, that this is a
showing of divine love, divine freedom. and in a good way this
'balances' the suffering, death etc we see.

but none of this speculation requires animal death or suffering to be
raised to the same level as that of human, which is exactly what you
do if you propose that in Adam all living things fell, death of all
animals resulted, previously vegetarian animals were transformed into
carnivores in the blink of an eye.

Furthermore you extend the sacrifice of Jesus to cover all of creation
so that all dead animals become alive in Christ in the last days. That
is foolish, simply to assert that no death in the animal world existed
prior to Adam's fall? why lock yourself into such patent contradictions?

The restoration of Creation in the Last Days is the Restoration of
Adam's descendants to a vegetarian world populated by ex-carnivores
now vegetarian? plus all the rest of non-human life? Why propose such
nonsense? isn't human beings living in the glory of God enough? why
bring the props?

further research
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
there have been a series of interesting discussions on the topic at TheologyWeb
check out: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26518

 

[HamletsChoice]

i'll take this as shorthand for either:
i don't care to discuss the issue
or
i don't understand your point.

in either case you have demonstrating no evidence of a desire to discuss the issues with such a response. thank you for showing your true desires before i had invested too much time in this thread.


i am curious about why come to a discussion board and post such one liners?

if you don't like my example say why.


as a matter of fact. this is the best example of how people must look to the world for elements of their worldview.
and it is exactly what i had in mind when i typed i:
Scripture is sufficient to raise up wise Christians, to grow the Church, to form people but it is not complete, it is not sufficient to form worldviews, it is not a guidebook to doing science. Nor does it make any of those claims.

It also ties in nicely to the feeling that most everyone has about "soulmates" or "spouses are gifts from God". I've argued sola Scriptura for at least 10 years online and since seminary in 1980 and this is one of those rare times that the idea just didn't get through.

o'l well i tried to hold up my end of the conversation.
and gave an opportunity to teach me the errors of my way. i'll just have to keep looking.

I'm sorry, but when you think your worldview is formed by your wifes name, the exact number of children you will have or the name of the city you will live in then I'm afraid it's going to take more than this little thread to answer your questions.

Your worldview is not formed by your wifes name, the number of children you will have or the city you will live in but rather your worldview will form whom you will marry, how many children you will have or what city you will live. I just thought you knew that.

The Scriptures teach us to marry Christians only and to seek out a godly spouce, with very specific details on what that encompasses. The Scriptures also teach us that God Himself gives us our specific spouce and we are never to divorce from them.

The Scriptures also teach that many children are a blessing from the Lord. An optomistic postmill worldview might provide an incentive for having many children whereas a more pessimistic premill dispensationist worldview might be more of a disincentive to having many children who will just live and die in a world that is slowly being more and more controlled by Satan (Andrea Yates had this worldview and indicated that was the primary reason she drowned her children).

As far as a Scriptural worldview effecting what city you will live in, well many like to live in "the Bible Belt" for instance because of the strong prevelant Christian values in this area. Many choose a city because of "callings" they perceive are coming from the Lord. Specific areas of a city are chosen because of more godly schools or churches in the area. The list of reasons just goes on and on.

These are just a very small list of examples of how a biblical worldview effects our thinking, and don't forget it always encompasses and believes in a Sovereign God who in fact does know who you will marry, how many children you will have and what city you will live in and slowly reveals it to you when He is ready. Of course an unbiblical worldview will also impact who you will marry and why, how many children you will have (legitimate and/or illegitimate) and where you will live.

The error of your ways is thinking that it's not important believing whether we came from monkeys or not, when even murderers confess this worldview directly influenced their thinking on the value they placed on human life. You seek neutrality in this area, and you don't realize there is no neutrality in any area of life.

All areas of life are lived out either for Christ or against Him. Even your bacon and eggs argument can be used to prove this. Some eat bacon and eggs to gain strength to live and work for Christ during the day and some eat bacon and eggs to gain strength to murder, rob and commit ungdliness during the day. God reveals in Scripture that even sleep is not neutral:

PSA 127:2 It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.

PRO 4:16 For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.

I just thought you knew this.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'm sorry, but when you think your worldview is formed by your wifes name, the exact number of children you will have or the name of the city you will live in then I'm afraid it's going to take more than this little thread to answer your questions.

Your worldview is not formed by your wifes name, the number of children you will have or the city you will live in but rather your worldview will form whom you will marry, how many children you will have or what city you will live. I just thought you knew that.



and you continued to build pieces of a Christian worldview out of Scripture concerning the questions of:
who is my wife?
and who are my kids?
exactly in the manner that any Christian ought to do.

That is precisely my point in using these two questions as i did. The Scriptures do give us all kinds of direction on how to create a worldview. but they are not exhaustive, we have to look at the world, at general revelation, at the Creation, at the book of God's works in order to fill in the details.

See why dismissing the questions was not the proper way to engage in the debate?
Thank you for demonstrating my point, Scripture gives us general guidelines that are primarily (although not exclusively) in the religions/metaphysical level, it is up to us to "push" those principles down into the details.

That is why the question: "who is my wife?" is such an excellent one. God doesn't tell me explicitly which woman i am to marry, not in propositional language, but the rules for the search are there, at least in part. What does this have to do with the creation-evolution-design debate? Just like the general rules for finding a wife, God gives us general directions for science, not specific ones. He doesn't tell us the age of the earth, but tells us that He alone is sacred and that looking at, going deep into the bowels of the earth is not a sacralidge but an acceptable way to discover the works of His hands. This desacralization of nature is an important presupposition of science, but it exists in the metaphysical level, not the level of science. It supports and make science possible, it is a shaping principle, but doesn't itself tell us the age of the earth.

Thank you for engaging in the discussion, i thought that the question "who is my wife?" had lost it's provocative and thoughtful forcefulness. It has always lead to ideas such as you expressed above in the past, being an issue that all of us have struggled and worked through......



btw
the reason i use breakfast as an example is two-fold.
first, i started using: why to get up in the morning? decades ago as the primary question of life after reading Camus.
second, it leads naturally into the interesting joke:
the perspective of a bacon and egg breakfast is different for the two participants.
for the hen is involved but the pig is committed....

 

[HamletsChoice]

and you continued to build pieces of a Christian worldview out of Scripture concerning the questions of:
who is my wife?
and who are my kids?
exactly in the manner that any Christian ought to do.

That is precisely my point in using these two questions as i did. The Scriptures do give us all kinds of direction on how to create a worldview. but they are not exhaustive, we have to look at the world, at general revelation, at the Creation, at the book of God's works in order to fill in the details.

Scriptures form our worldview and God has created us and all creation in a way that we have both the ability and desire to use this worldview to discover all that He has created (like Newton and Galileo).

Yet when we leave the plain revelation of Scripture our discoveries of creation become distorted by our sin corrupted reason and interpretation and they take-off and turn into all kinds of wild and fanciful stories and tales (like Darwin).

Many Christians after being "deprogramed" from the indoctrination of evolution often testify how amazed they are that they could have been so gullible and naive.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

snip snip to address one point.

Many Christians after being "deprogramed" from the indoctrination of evolution often testify how amazed they are that they could have been so gullible and naive.

do you have examples of this 'deprogramming' i can read?