YEC's and Atheists: Strange Bedfellows?

[Vance]

Not even remotely do I infer that.


OK... why did we ever have to "suffer death" in the first place? That is the critical issue here.

Because death is part of God's creation. Death is not evil, sin is evil. Pain is not evil. Does the lion sin when he kills? Is he evil? No, it is part of God's wonderful creation, the cycle of life and death. People who are saved by God's grace, who have accepted His redemption and are in full communion with Him will still suffer physical pain and death. What is this in comparison to the issue of spiritual life and death? A mere nothing. Why does God allow His children to suffer such things? That is an entirely different question, and more for the general apologetics than origins.

The bottom line is that Jesus' came to redeem us from the death we suffered at the Fall, and His work is not void. And, He says that those who accept Him shall be saved (from that death). So, in order for it not to have been void, it must be somethign more than physical death or Jesus' redemptive gift is proven ineffective a thousand times every day. This just can not be.

But, if it is speaking of spiritual life and death, then it all fits perfectly. They are in the Garden in communion with God, full spiritual life. God says that on the day they eat of the fruit, they shall die. They eat of the fruit, and on that day they are expelled from the Garden (loss of communion with God). When Jesus came as a sacrifice, we can now regain spiritual life, that communion with God that was lost at the Fall.

We all have eternal life, whether in Heaven or Hell, so what was Scripture referring to when it says that we will gain "life" and have it more abundantly? It is not just living forever, since even the sinful will do this in Hell. It can only be referring to spiritual life, since that is exactly what we gain when we accept salvation.

The issue of also never having to suffer physical death as well, due to our new bodies I see as an entirely different issue. As Christians we will have eternal spirtual life, while those without Christ will suffer enternal spiritual death. We will also be freed from physical death since there will be a new heaven and earth, with all new "rules" and natural laws, and our bodies will be indestructable. Those without Christ will suffer eternal torment of the body and soul.

That is how I read it, and it is the only way that makes sense to me. The fact that it also seems to fit best with the evidence of God's Creation is just confirmation of this reading.

 

[herev]

Even if we assume the death of plant life is included in the concept of death as applied to animal life we would still have a problem. After we receive our glorified bodies, it appears we will still have access to food on the new earth. Yet Christ says there will be no more death. It still appears plain to me that physical death of animal life was non-existent prior to the fall just as it will once again be in the new heaven and earth. Plant life is not included in this "death" equation and apparently never was.

As long as you recognize this is an interpretation, I'm ok with it.
I simply do not believe that the fall of Adam requires a belief that our original bodies were created to live forever. If they had been created to live forever, there would have been no need for the tree of life. as such, it makes sense to me that through God's creation, there was life and there was death--however, when humans were brought into the garden, they were offered a chance to defeat death (the tree of life). It was the spiritual death that came with the sin--and the resulting eviction from the garden made them susceptible to physical death again. Now, we have that tree of life in heaven, as it again waits for us.
In this light, there is nothing unbiblical with the notion that evolution would require death prior to the fall of man

 

[California Tim]

As long as you recognize this is an interpretation, I'm ok with it.

Is that not the essence of all discussion here? You contend for one interpretation while I contend for another.

 

[herev]

Well Amen to that. If that was the attitude of most of the creationists here, I would never even post! I'm never upset nor concerned that others hold to such a view, but when they tell me theirs is truth and mine is only a human interpretation, then my skin starts to get all red and stuff

Is that not the essence of all discussion here? You contend for one interpretation while I contend for another.

 

[Vance]

Especially when they add that if we just were willing to trust God and listen to the Spirit, we would have the same interpretation! :0)