No it does not.
Jesus 'death is not (just) about eternity. it is about forgiveness. That forgiveness is for this life, as much, if not more than the next. Reducing the Atonement to Eternity is reducing the value of this life to basically Zero.
Richard
BEn…welcome to this forum. As you can see, you have a range of people ready to share their perspectives on this issue. I grew up in an atheist background but became a follower of Jesus (as I like to put it) and then found myself in with the creation-in-six-days crowd. This viewpoint worked until it no longer did. And when that happens, you are mostly left on your own in most Christian circles–if you even dare bring it up. I have thought about the whole “Adam and Eve thing” and so forth and there are a lot of questions that we are left to deal with on our own, so to speak… As for animals “being like us” in the sense of having emotions, grieving “like humans do” – well, yes, well do I recall the downcast body language of a heron who, at a local intersection, stood guard over the lifeless body of her/his offspring who had not escaped an oncoming human-powered car…it is touching, for sure. How “deep” or in what sense these animals have/feel/express sorrow is for the heron-psychologist among us to know and explain. And is their sorrow (or apparent expression thereof) a sign of 'image-of-God" or a larger evidence of an entire universe “groaning” as it awaits redemption from a Fall initiated by one species of created beings-- is the Question of the Ages…
And whether they become nonexistent at death – or live on in heron heaven-- is unanswerable. The Bible “seems” at least to have focused solely on God’s dealings with humankind – whom He seems to have selected for some specific role—but never mentions humans like the Navajo while including them (as well) in the fallenness exhibited by a few folks in the ancient Near East… He selected herons for heron things and angels for angel things (and not all angels seem to be created equal either!)… As for the rightness or wrongness of “slander, malice, fornication, etc” — I suppose every generation of humans wrestles with these questions. But arguing that slander or fornication may be rougher manifestations of a biologically determined evolutionary strategy — that is a sort of thinking that has been justifed by every tinpot dictator and schoolyard bully since the beginning of time. Everyone stopped for speeding has a perfectly good and noble explanation for why they were right in doing so. As a 14-year-old once sagely said to me, “Laws were made to be broken.” And I replied “this is why 14 year olds are not allowed to have drivers licenses.” Something like that answer may apply to us in general.
In other words, I don’t think “selfish evolutionary strategy” can justify every emotion or action. Hitler and Stalin already tried that argument. We may have evolved, but that --and biology --does not give us the license that we thought we were given.
We certainly evolved and that’s what holds us back, makes us slaves to our passions.
As a Conservative Pentecostal Christian, I cannot accept a view that reduces the Atonement to simple psychological relief or ‘forgiveness for this life’ while surrendering to death by treating it as something natural. Suggesting that it doesn’t matter whether sin came from nature or from Adam is an error that strips the legal and real victory of Christ of its substance.
We must be clear on these points to avoid confusing those seeking the truth:
Death is an enemy, not a natural process: If death were part of God’s original design, Christ would not have come to conquer it, but to accept it. Death is the result of a specific historical fracture and a manipulation that corrupted creation before humanity fell.
Superficial similarity vs. Differential truth: Just because science finds resemblances between animals and humans does not mean we share an origin. The similarity is external and a fruit of current degradation, but the original human being was created with a genome of perfection and 99.9% sustainability, capable of self-healing and maintaining itself with a complexity that today’s fallen biology cannot replicate.
The purpose of Redemption: Jesus did not die to forgive animal instincts. He died because the human being, the head of creation, lost a real biological and spiritual perfection. Forgiveness is what legally allows that sustainability and eternal life to be restored to us.
Reducing the work of the Cross to ‘feeling forgiven in this life’ ignores that we were created to stand above biological corruption. The resurrection of Jesus is proof that death is an intruder and that God’s original design was one of full life, not of survival and degradation
Science would claim otherwise
I do not se e that as a sequitor, or logical conclusion.
Without death this planet would overpopulate with 24 hours until the life starved whereby you would get the rather uncomfortable world of Torchwood fame/
You appear to be confusing physical death with spiritual death.
Not to mention showing a distinct condemnation of God’s creative abilities, Jesus was not a solution to a problem God did not know would happen or was caused by the superior power of Adam.
Richard
"Dear brother:
I am also a Christian, and I have been on this path for several years now. At one point, I also had the same doubts you are mentioning; I decided to keep them separate from my faith until I finally discovered the truth. In studying evolutionism, I have uncovered several logical flaws that I want to share so you are not led astray:
First, evolutionists often accuse Christians of believing without evidence, boasting about the vast amount of proof they claim supports evolution. However, their entire theory rests on the idea that we exist by pure chance and fortune. It is scientifically inconceivable to base a study on a one-in-a-trillion chance. It seems to me that there is more frustration directed at the Christian religion than there is scientific objectivity in those who defend ‘chance’ as our creator while labeling the Lord’s decision to create us as ‘fictitious.’
Second, if we descend from animals, why must the so-called evolutionary chain always move ‘upward’? It is illogical. The animals that ‘evolved’ never stopped being animals. If we are truly just animals, why then must we behave in a civilized manner? It makes no sense. An animal can mimic human actions, but it cannot stop being an animal. If that were the case, we would be savages, mating with whomever we chose without any moral order, because in the end, we would just be beasts. Our conscience and civilization prove we are something entirely different.
Third, at the end of the day, both atheism and Christianity require a leap of faith. The evidence for the non-existence of God is nil; it does not exist. On the contrary, we have the historical certainty that Jesus did exist as a living human being.
What you will see in this forum are people in a war of beliefs. Many do not care about you; they only care about what you believe, and they will fight fiercely to make you adopt their way of thinking. But the choice is yours: choose wisely. Because if we as Christians are wrong, we lose nothing; but if they are wrong, they lose everything.
Stay firm and seek the differential truth that separates us from the animal kingdom."
Ricardo, your arguments stem from a premise that denies God’s omnipotence and the perfection of His original design. To claim that without death the planet would overpopulate in 24 hours is to apply the logic of fallen biological scarcity and limitation to a state of absolute perfection. God, as the Supreme Architect, is not bound by the spatial limitations we perceive, and the mandate to ‘fill the earth’ implied a perfect management under a 99.9% sustainable genome and a corpus gloriae that did not rely on cycles of death to renew life. Death is not a ‘technical solution’ from God to control the population; it is an intrusion and an enemy.
There is no confusion between physical and spiritual death. Scripture is clear: the last enemy to be destroyed is physical death (1 Corinthians 15:26). If physical death were a ‘creative’ design of God, Christ would not have physically resurrected to prove His victory over it. Separating the two is a gnosticization of the Gospel. Jesus did not come to solve a problem that God did not know how to foresee, but to legally restore what was fractured by human disobedience and the manipulation that corrupted creation before humanity fell.
Finally, current science can only confirm what it observes in a system that is already degraded and corrupt. Using the observation of a fallen world to dictate what God’s original design should have been is like studying a seized engine to say it was never designed to function correctly. Reducing the Atonement to a simple ‘forgiveness for this life’ while accepting death as part of the divine plan is a surrender to naturalism. I stand for a Christ who has the power to restore eternal life, not only in spirit, but in the fullness of a creation that was once perfect and will be so again.
No one said that it was. Death is a vital part of the circle of life. We need it. Virtually everything we eat was alive at some point and had to be killed (Including plants, fruits, even nuts) This whole notion about there being no death before Adam is so clearly ludicrous I have no idea why anyone clings to it, especially someone talking science elsewhere.
Death is not the enemy. The fear of death might be. Jesus conquered that one as well.
Any Doctrine that claims Adam changed God’s creation ignores Eccl 3, regardless of any vanity about the power of humanity (Adam)
Richard
Reminds me of the old atheist quip (with tongue firmly in cheek), “Why do Christians wear seatbelts when they drive?”.
If I were to way, way over philosophize on death and biology as an atheist, I would lean towards the explanation that the purpose of death is to make room for the next generation. I have to admit that brings me a bit of solace and a bit of abject horror at the same time. Strangely, older generations have been complaining about the younger generations since there were generations.
William Lane Craig recently wrote a book giving four views on the historical Adam. In discussing this book with Sean McDowell, he noted that YEC is defensible from a biblical hermetic even though he disagrees strongly with their position. He noted that it is healthy for believers to understand and discuss various views on theological issues including this one.
Ken Ham (YEC) in commenting on WLCs position affirmed him as a fellow believer.
I think that both of these brothers in Christ demonstrate humility and respect. And perhaps it is best to let God decide what he sees as divine respect. And I appreciate that the Biologos Forum welcomes contributions that differ from theirs.
Notice that he doesn’t say YEC is defensible from a scientific perspective.
What needs to be asked is if is healthy for Christians to misrepresent and deny science in order to defend YEC. For example, is it healthy to misrepresent evolution as “a weak theory” when it is clearly not. If people see YECs misrepresenting science, what are they to think of their trustworthiness when it comes to representing scripture?
Why should it be?
To be honest, I have no idea why YECs dabble in science at all
A great Cook does not have to know how to play chess. There is little doubt that YECs know and understand Scripture. (From their own perspective).
An expert scientist does not make them an expert on Scripture.
Richard
That was my poor attempt at imitating Augustine.
“It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel [unbeliever] to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books [Scriptures], how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?”–St. Augustine
I suggest you learn some humility and tolerance before casting the judgement we have been commanded not to.
I do not have the time or the inclination to explain myself or refute your accusations. In truth I should not have to. I do not judge your faith and beliefs. Kindly offer me the same respect.
Richard
Edit,
It is a shame because you will fid that I do not accept the scientific view of Evolution or believe that we are a product of chance. Still, you appear to have made your decision about me, so further discussion seems pointless.
You are jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion–not helpful for productive conversations. There is an ongoing research project that is well defined and formulated. The research is centered around but not limited to blind cave fish. When the fish are exposed to sunlight, within days for some features and within a couple of generations for other features, they become just like their above ground relatives, which are the same species.
I think we can also dismiss the “a lot of rhetoric and nonsense without any data to support it” as well. You will have to look into it a bit more before you can make a fair assessment.
Eating meat was not sanctioned in scripture until after the flood. Plants fruit and nuts are not considered “alive” in the same way that sentient animals are, so are not seen as dying. And that is why death in the fossil record combined with long ages before creation, and old earth a problem to (not for) biblical (YEC) creationists And of course, YEC holds that there were only five creation days before Adam. . The fossil record is a record of death, disease and suffering, “red in tooth and claw,” but since the fossil record was a result of the Genesis Flood, the fossil record is not a problem for YEC.
So from and old earth perspective, no death before Adam would be ludicrous, but not for a young earth. I know, I know, you believe that a young earth is ludicrous. I already hear your response ringing in my ears. So I will save you the effort of saying it yourself.
“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you, and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (Gen. 9:3). Until the flood, I take it you believe only plants were allowed to be eaten. After the flood, meat, milk, eggs, honey and other animal products became food.
Do you think all the mammals had to wait until after the flood to let their young nurse? Or was it just human infants that were supposed to eat plants and not their mom’s milk before the flood?
Good question. I think milk, cheese, eggs and honey were all available as food prior to the flood, as that didn’t involve death. And wool from sheep could be used for clothing. Otherwise, how could there be animal husbandry?
I doubt that you do.
I do not hold YEC as ludicrous. I understand why it is believed. I do not agree with it, but that is another matter. My crit of your understanding of death is not scientific, although the science has merit.
The Garden Narrative gives a poor view of God. He appears to treat Adam and Eve like pets. It would seem to claim that god did not want us to be sentient or at least, understand the difference between good and evil. Why else would He deny us access to it.
However, He dos not make it impossible to get. Why? Why would God deliberately put temptation in our way? If He did not want us to eat that fruit then He either does not make the tree at all, or puts it beyond out reach. furthermore, since when did God tell half truths, if not a bare faced lie? Adam did not drop dead immediately.
Furthermore, if we were already eternal, why create a tree of (eternal) life? The words given to God suggest that He did not want ust o have that either
“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Why then are we now offered eternal life through Christ?
Furthermore, ECCL 3 is a rant against the fact that whatever we do life goes on the sun rises, things are born, and so on, yet one action from Adam and suddenly there is death in the world? The whole world? Are you serious? How powerful do you think man (Adam) is? And how weak and inept is God that He could not stop it!
what is man that You are mindful of him , or the son of man that You care for him? what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? what are mere mortals that you should think about them, human beings that you should care for them?
Apparently we are more powerful than God!
Richard
Edit
James 1:13
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.