Then, again, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique came out in 2017 and had many of the same misrepresentations.
5 Likes
I have often thought that Paul referred to death as being spiritual–though I know that it doesn’t really matter too much. However, in Romans 5:14, he alludes to death reigning over those from Adam to Moses, even though they didn’t have the law to break–and in that case, he’s apparently referring to physical death. Does that have bearing in this case–that his idea of death was physical at Adam’s sin, and not spiritual–and how does that affect Grudem’s and Caner/Hindson’s impression? I do think that I may be applying the passage incorrectly; but it was taught this way at my (very nice) YEC church, so I’m trying to figure this out better.
I’m EC by the way, so do of course believe physical death have been present since the beginning. Thanks.
Great reading everyone’s thoughts on the excerpt. I must say it was very hard to post it without any personal comments to sway responses.
I think there are a couple of things about the entry that cause me a great deal of sadness. Several, such as misrepresentations, straw men arguments, and general logic errors have been covered by many already.
However, I think what causes me the most sadness is the apparent unwillingness to either A. engage with primary sources, B. do so in an honest way, or C. to fact check what they are writing. Even in 2008, it would not have been hard to contact some well known TE bloggers and ask ‘Hey, we’re writing a book where we engage with some of your views, would you say we’ve done so accurately?’ Crumbs, if their publisher was half decent they probably could have hooked them up with some bona fide TE writers to talk to. I mean, if evolutionary theories of creation are so pitifully unbiblical what do they have to lose in providing an accurate representation of the facts?
As much as I might agree with your warning @Mervin_Bitikofer, I do think that this kind of writing doesn’t help either. By perpetuating incorrect information it reinforces the divide and makes open dialogue harder. This is because we inevitably end up first having to deconstruct misinformation and unfounded accusations before we can begin to articulate what we actually believe. What do you think?
3 Likes
I am sorry, but Romans 5 is a complete argument that many try and break down and in doing so lose the whole point. Paul compares Jesus to Adam but in a Global like for like manner. He uses the imagery of Death and consequences freely rather than holding to one meaning throughout. What matters is the meaning of Christ’s death, rather than the meaning of Adam’s sin.
Paul would turn in his grave if he realised how his carefully worded argument has been misconstrued and perverted.
Richard
1 Like
Yes, that’s true…!
Hi Liam,
What did you think of the article I posted in the Adam and Eve thread?
I’m sure I should have spent more time trying to assess how much of the author’s words you agree with. But I thought I could save a little time for other readers if I started with the problem in the very first paragraph:
The phrase Theistic Evolution is NOT an oxymoron. I suppose we can set up a definitional framework where it becomes one, but this simple PEW Survey exhibit, below, goes right to the heart of the matter!:
[Be sure to click on image to maximize font size!]
When the survey question is combined to include God’s possible use of Evolution for His work of creation, we find there is an actual majority of the Christian population who favor that concept.
The bible mentions rain and storms. Do we insist that these weather conditions can only be produced by a supernatural miraculous effort? Or do we admit that God could make it rain by either means?
Since when do we attempt to make Evaporation and Condensation beyond the tool set of God? In the same manner, it should be far from shocking that God would actually manipulate mutations and changes in ecological niches in order to produce constantly evolving populations of plants and animals - - all according to God’s mysterious plans.
It would actually help explains to all of us who see the Cosmos and Earth as extremely old, why did God wait so long before bringing the Messiah to the universe!
Conclusion: When posed as a single question in a Pew survey, 48% of the average US adult agrees that humans “Evolved: guided by God or higher power” (vs. 18% who think humans were created in their present form)! This is truth speaking to adults right to their hearts.
@christy, glad to be back for a visit!
3 Likes
makes no sense
Theistic Evolution posits that God in heaven has had a “hand” in evolution on earth, “guiding” the same to promote the emergence of the human species
If so, then humans are not the product of purely 100% terrestrial natural selection, but are the result of some sort of “cultivation” and “artificial” selection process
The most obvious comparison would be to domesticated animals, in whose cultivated artificially selected evolution, humans have played a direct & prominent role
The evidence for cultivation & artificial selection is a suite of traits that would not arise naturally because they only serve some “ulterior” human purpose – like greyhounds that can run really fast… for human race tracks
If TE is true, humans possess a suite of traits which would not plausibly arise naturally, and only did so because God in heaven “reached into” our terrestrial evolution, promoting some (like Abraham) and demoting others (like Nimrod) so as to gradually “steer” human evolution towards some Divine Heavenly Purpose
The general perception that Godlike Heavenly Powers promote those who most sincerely follow them, and demote those who do not honor Them, is completely 100% consistent with TE
It appears that EC conveniently believes death is limited to spiritual separation from God when speaking of Genesis and Adam and Eve. EC ignores Romans 5:12, Romans 8:2, 1 Corinthians 15:20-26 and then punts such arguments off to a creationist website?
It’s not a “convenient” belief. You can have a more nuanced view than “all death is a result of sin” from studying Scripture:
3 Likes
Hey @gbrooks9. I recently completed a long journey over to the EC camp from a YEC background. You can read about it here:
I think you make some good points and I imagine that over here in the UK the numbers are much higher. However, I do wonder how convincing a YEC might find such statistics? Wouldn’t it be easier to accuse of us of arguments from the majority? It occurs to me that if one has already brought into a culture wars mentality, then it would be very easy to see oneself as part of a faithful minority.
Paul’s warning to Timothy is often co-opted to make this point:
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3, NIV2011)
What do you think?
2 Likes
I’m not denying that the fact that it does require some hard theological reflection. This reflection requires a rereading of scripture in light of the evidence and the evidence in light of scripture to ask whether we might have misunderstood the Bible on this point.
Then again, this is hardly the first time the church (and Christians) have had to ask such questions. In terms of science, the heliocentric view of the solar system is the most famous example, but there have been other examples, and not only in the realms of science. Theologically, the Protestant Reformation is the most obvious example. Socially, the work of abolitionists and suffragettes in the UK forced the church to revisits its scriptural view on slavery and the role of women in society. During, and especially in the aftermath of, WWII, many German Christians had some very tough questions to answer about the church’s support for the Nazi government and the extent to which one should submit to the state when the state is bent on evil. These are all things that we take for granted today, and on one level likely understand sub-conscientiously as we read the scriptures. However, church history tells us this has not always been the case, on such matters we see further because we are standing on the shoulders of those who came before us. If EC is correct then one day its view of death will be seen in scripture almost reflexively, if not then it will be forgotten along with the countless other failed interpretive models that litter the theological landfill of church history.
I’m not saying that EC’s are on the correct side of history and that future generations will vindicate us or anything as arrogant as that. I am merely pointing out there is precedent in church history to question settled opinions and established interpretations. In this way, the Lord works by his Spirit in his churches so that they are both self-critiquing and self-correcting. Evidently, much of the work of EC writers is (hopefully) gracious self-critique of the church; time will tell if it also part of the self-correction.* Either way, differences of theological opinion are a means of God’s grace intended to A. drive us back to scripture to see if such things are true and B. to help us to practice the virtues of love and patience towards those who disagree with us.
On the topic of death more generally, @Paul_Allen1, can we at least agree that there was some death in the natural world before the fall (animals, birds, fish, plants, insects, etc.)?.
* It seems to me that humility and the history of science requires me to leave the door open for the possibility of such a groundbreaking discovery that both ECs and YECs are shown to be incorrect.
7 Likes
Christy,
With respect, this article is not a nuanced view of sin and death. I would suggest it misrepresents scripture.
For example, the opening paragraph assumes the Biologos position.
“Without question, death has accompanied life since it first appeared on this planet millions of years ago, long before humans existed. The fossil record testifies to this fact. All death cannot be the result of human sinfulness”.
‘Substantial biblical evidence.’ The author is making an assertion without Biblical evidence.
"Although sin undoubtedly causes a great deal of suffering and premature death, substantial biblical evidence indicates that death—even human death—is simply part of the present creation and not the result of sin"
This paragraph is irrelevant to the topic. The homosexual activists use the same ‘silence of Jesus’ argument. Yet Jesus does connect sin to disease with the man at the pool. The purpose of these miracles was to bring glory to God.
“Jesus heals the sick and raises the dead during his ministry. Yet, he never blames human mortality on Adam and Eve. He doesn’t often address the origins of human death and suffering, but when he does, Jesus explicitly denies that disability, illness, natural disaster, and death are punishment for specific sins. Instead, he explains that God can work through such circumstances and also use them to call people to repentance.”
The author needs to do his research if he is going to quote Paul and Galatians 3. Why take our place? The purpose is clearly outlined in the OT sacrificial lamb of God.
“Jesus ultimately was rejected, tortured, and crucified. The sinless Jesus did not atone for sin by passing away in his sleep. Instead, taking our place required accepting the curse of being hung on a tree (Galatians 3). Christ, whom the New Testament repeatedly describes as the agent and organizing principle in the creation of the world, brings life through death.2”
The next paragraph first diverts the conversation, on God judging other aspects of life. Off-topic. But then makes the claim that death is part of God’s good creation?
Then he states - “death remains.” What did Jesus conquer? What does the resurrection state about death? Eternal life.
"If mortality is part of the original, good creation, how could the Apostle Paul call death “the last enemy” in 1 Corinthians 15? First, death is not the only enemy that Paul says God will judge. In this same passage, he also names rulers and authorities , though these are part of God’s good creation (Colossians 1). Paul elsewhere names all humanity as enemies of God (Romans 5). Paul names death an enemy, but death remains part of God’s good creation."
This next argument is simply wrong. At least he seeks to address the topic this time. Adam brought spiritual separation from God and brought physical death to all humanity. The author then gets lost in his own logic instead of referring to scripture.
“The various ways the Bible speaks of death are crucial to understanding Romans 5-8. In [Romans 5:12-21], Paul famously compares Adam’s disobedience to Christ’s obedience, and the death that came through Adam to the righteousness and life that come through Christ. How should we understand death in this difficult passage, given that the life received from Christ is spiritual life now, and eternal life following biological death? If the death Adam’s disobedience brought is biological, Paul’s logic seems to require that Christ’s obedience brought the end of biological death. Yet, Christians still die.”
With respect, Biologos needs a more nuanced…biblical view of sin and death
Yes, it assumes that Scripture is not the only source of truth about the world, and that science tells us true things.
The article goes on to discuss multiple references to death in context. That is the substantial biblical evidence. You are free to hand-wave away the evidence as not relevant to your concerns, but that doesn’t mean the author failed to present Scriptural arguments.
BioLogos is committed to interacting with the facts of science as well as what the Bible says. The facts of science clearly and irrefutably refute the idea that there was no physical death of humans until one man and woman sinned in a garden 6,000 years ago.
5 Likes
I have noted your comments and I disagree.
I see no benefit in further comments
Do you disagree with this statement:
1 Like
Ahh but can you be certain what happens when we depart from this mortal life?
Perhaps you need to redefine “death”?
Scripture is not simple, or simplistic so neither can our interpretation nor understanding of it be either.
Richard
I think you misunderstand what it is I’m doing with the PEW survey data.
I have been told by more than one YEC (and even a few Atheists), that if a person accepts Evolution, then God could not use Evolution to shape life forms on Earth.
And yet that is the very core of my position. Evolution is to humanity like evaporation and condensation is to making rain. These are natural lawful processes … and God uses them … A LOT!
1 Like
I understand people say that a lot, however, it is flagrantly false. Humans use evolution to cultivate domesticated animals. Choosing favored characteristics. It’s not natural selection, but because of human involvement in the process. It is artificial selection, but it is still an evolutionary process mutation and (artificial) selection.
God in heaven could use the same process to cultivate favoured life forms on Earth.
“Supernatural selection” so to speak.
2 Likes
The problem is not a separate creation in chapters one and two. The split between Adam and Eve was the evolution of humanity. Eve did not happen on day six. In fact there was a 1000 year period of perfection without death before Eve was evolved in a single process.
The ramification is that on day six God created humanity that contained both genders. There was not even a biological function. Humans actually multiplied. It was not a combination of biological sperm and eggs. No death or mutation period. When a son of God multiplied out of necessity, it happened. Male and female traits were contained in and passed on with no changes for 1000 years. Necessity was determined by the economy to actually prevent death from occurring.
What sustained this economy? Genesis 1:29-30
29 Then God said, “Here! Throughout the whole earth I am giving you as food every seed-bearing plant and every tree with seed-bearing fruit.
30 And to every wild animal, bird in the air and creature crawling on the earth, in which there is a living soul, I am giving as food every kind of green plant.” And that is how it was.
Wrong interpretation: the plants and trees themselves. Nope, that is and would be death and destruction.
Truth: The fruit and seeds themselves. On day 3 God placed every every plant and tree into the ground. No seeds springing up. The whole earth was planted with the oxygen giving, seed and fruit producing plant and tree life covering the whole earth. All that would be done is the production of seeds and fruit. On day 5 was the creation of birds and fish. The birds ate seeds and fruit, and the fish cleaned up the waste. On day six all animal life and sons of God were created. The sons of God were in charge and the whole earth had an economy with only seeds and fruit as a commodity, and the fish cleaned up the waste. No seeds nor fruit died in the process of producing more plants and trees. It would mess up the perfect balance.
That is why chapter 2 verses 4-6 could never make sense. It is not creation out of order. It is the generations of the earth without death, and not a single seed died in the earth for 1000 years.
4 Here is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created. On the day when Adonai , God, made earth and heaven,
5 there was as yet no wild bush on the earth, and no wild plant had as yet sprung up; for Adonai , God, had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no one to cultivate the ground.
6 Rather, a mist went up from the earth which watered the entire surface of the ground.
It was not just because humans did not till the ground. It was true they did not have to. Even in nature, there was no seed or fruit allowed to die, in the ground, for 1000 years. It was called a Lord’s Day. God did not create nor change, nor allowed change to happen relating to death. Yes, the sons of God seemingly had to multiply rather quickly to gather up all the seeds and pick the fruit, and the birds and animals all helped in the process of running an economy that no seeds or fruit died but sustained life on earth. Animals and the sons of God would have been evenly spread across the face of the earth.
Now after 1000 years enter God. He planted Paradise the Garden and separated His chosen son of God, into a walled area, that would be home (eventually) to billions of this one son of God’s living space. He brought all the animals this particular son of God would need. God then had this individual call all the animals what this individual thought proper. Then God called this son of God, Adam. Then God did the next step and created a biological male and female. Then time started for Adam. 30 years later, Adam disobeyed. 100 years after that, Seth was born.
History of fallen humanity began. Cain and Abel were born in the Garden before the fall. Chapter 4 is their history separate from the other 3 chapters. They were perfect biological sons of God in the process of a separate male and female form. At the fall, Eve was changed biologically and birth would be forever changed. Cain was the only biological offspring of Adam with a full image of God, and he was male. We do not know if the sons of God were biologically forced to have genders or not. We do see that starting with Methusala, who had daughters before sons, that those daughters started a process of different types of mutations involving humans that would decay and eventually die with the sons of God.
For 1500 years, and the point death was certain, the sons of God now with the ability to kill and destroy, drastically changed the face of the earth, because they were actually God on earth. And no longer bound by God’s will. In fact that is why God finally declared, “His Spirit, the God part, would not always strive against them and their spirit.” Adam lost his connection with God at the fall. That is why he was cursed by God from even having offspring for 100 years. Seth also had to wait 105 years himself. That time frame kept dropping. This is the record that God left us in Genesis, in the first 4 chapters.