# Theistic Evolution Openly Taught in Metro New York Presbytery



## bouletheou

TE Wes White has discovered that Ron Choong, a TE from MNY Presbytery who teaches regularly at Redeemer, is openly advocating theistic evolution. And some of his exegetical conclusions are strange, to put it mildly.

Do you think this is acceptable in the PCA?


----------



## Zenas

Wow.


----------



## Tim

I don't think it is acceptable in any church. Or any school.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Are we really that surprised? Keller himself leans towards theistic evolution in some of his writings. If you are getting it from the pulpit, then people in the congregation are going to believe it.


----------



## jjraby

> Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.



yikes.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Nothing to see here...move along now...


----------



## Curt

jjraby said:


> Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yikes.
Click to expand...

 
There are many theologians who believe in pre-adamic hominids. If I remember correctly, F.F. Bruce is among them. That doesn't mean they're right.


----------



## Marrow Man

The tail wagging the dog.


----------



## sastark

bouletheou said:


> Do you think this is acceptable in the PCA?



If this man is not corrected, then, yes, apparently it is acceptable in the PCA. Ought it to be? No!


----------



## Willem van Oranje

sastark said:


> bouletheou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think this is acceptable in the PCA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this man is not corrected, then, yes, apparently it is acceptable in the PCA. Ought it to be? No!
Click to expand...

 
If the PCA doesn't deal with this, the other NAPARC churches should say something to her about it through official channels.


----------



## MMasztal

Acceptable? No. Especially not in a PCA church.

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------




Curt said:


> jjraby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many theologians who believe in pre-adamic hominids. If I remember correctly, F.F. Bruce is among them. That doesn't mean they're right.
Click to expand...


The problem then becomes that death existed before the fall. That, in my opinion, is the killer for that hypothesis.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Would a Framework view be able to get around the death problem?


----------



## sastark

Chaplainintraining said:


> Would a Framework view be able to get around the death problem?


 
That depends on just what the word "death" is really trying to convey to the original audience.


----------



## MMasztal

Chaplainintraining said:


> Would a Framework view be able to get around the death problem?


 
Not that I can figure. But one scenario might be God created the earth, etc., and tried it with dinosaurs just to see if he was up to the job. You know, creating a habitable planet is a tough order. Well, that experiment seemed to work, so he then thought about trying it with homonids, but he had to get rid of the dinosaurs so they didn't eat the homonids. [Oops, now we have death to deal with] God then made homonids, but realized he goofed and they weren't quite what he intended, so he got rid of them too. [the death thing is going to be a problem] Finally, God got it right and made the ADAM man and the story starts in Genesis. 

Assuming this fairy tale is true and KNOWING the Bible IS true, especially about how death entered the world, I would ask why wouldn't God have removed the pre-Adamic evidence of life to avoid the problems pests like Darwin were going to start. Maybe God lacked the power to do so. Or why didn't he just reveal his experiment in the Bible anyway? Would it be that God would have to admit he made a mistake and contradict that whole omnipotent thing he wants his people to believe?


----------



## Reformed Baptist

As someone from a Baptist background, is there any General Assembly addressing this? I know subjects regarding Biblical inerrancy have been addressed. It would be nice to see the ARBCA Assembly (isn't this half-way to presbyterian govt. ha!) or some Presbyterian Assembly address this. If they have, I missed it.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Is this thread viewable to the outside world? I just wonder if it might be better off away from prying eyes.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Reformed Baptist said:


> As someone from a Baptist background, is there any General Assembly addressing this? I know subjects regarding Biblical inerrancy have been addressed. It would be nice to see the ARBCA Assembly (isn't this half-way to presbyterian govt. ha!) or some Presbyterian Assembly address this. If they have, I missed it.


 
The OPC general assembly addressed the topic of creation.

---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------




JonathanHunt said:


> Is this thread viewable to the outside world? I just wonder if it might be better off away from prying eyes.


 
I wish that Rev. Choong had kept these views of his away from prying eyes and brought them up to his presbytery instead of posting them for the world to read on his webblog.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Willem van Oranje said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As someone from a Baptist background, is there any General Assembly addressing this? I know subjects regarding Biblical inerrancy have been addressed. It would be nice to see the ARBCA Assembly (isn't this half-way to presbyterian govt. ha!) or some Presbyterian Assembly address this. If they have, I missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OPC general assembly addressed the topic of creation.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread viewable to the outside world? I just wonder if it might be better off away from prying eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish that Rev. Choong had kept these views of his away from prying eyes and brought them up to his presbytery instead of posting them for the world to read on his webblog.
Click to expand...


Gotta love the OPC. They have been very strong and biblical in this day and age.


----------



## SemperEruditio

My apologies but can someone direct me to where theistic evolution is openly taught in the Metro NY Presbytery. Rev. Choong has made it clear what he believes but where is it that theistic evolution is openly taught?


----------



## Zenas

In that same vein, can someone show me where MNY has reprimanded TE Choong?


----------



## jwright82

SemperEruditio said:


> My apologies but can someone direct me to where theistic evolution is openly taught in the Metro NY Presbytery. Rev. Choong has made it clear what he believes but where is it that theistic evolution is openly taught?


 
The blog in the OP quoted him as advocating that humans merely evolved from primates, it seems that he advocates something similer to the BioLogos group. Just for the record there is not one single shred of actual evidence that suggests that we evolved from primates. Evolutionists take evidence interpret it through the lens of their theory than turn around and try to sell it as evidence for evolution, this is always a circuler argument. For example the fossil record does one bone being barried deeper than another bone imply a genetic relationship between the two? *NO!* It does no such thing. That is a bad logical leap that begs the question. I am always amazed at how bad the reasoning is by evolutionists.


----------



## Wes White

Frank, doesn't posting your views on the internet constitute "openly teaching"? All these statements are public documents. In addition, you don't have to look hard. This is clearly being taught at Redeemer in NYC. Just do a search on "Ron Choong" and "Redeemer."


----------



## SemperEruditio

jwright82 said:


> SemperEruditio said:
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies but can someone direct me to where theistic evolution is openly taught in the Metro NY Presbytery. Rev. Choong has made it clear what he believes but where is it that theistic evolution is openly taught?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The blog in the OP quoted him as advocating that humans merely evolved from primates, it seems that he advocates something similer to the BioLogos group.
Click to expand...

 
His blog nor BioLogos are open forums of the Metro NY Presbytery. While Choong has made his thoughts public I still do not see where his ideas are openly taught in Metro NY Presbytery. The claim is that a Presbytery in our denomination is openly allowing theistic evolution to be taught. I am commanded and also chose to not to believe this without proof. Metro NY Presbytery now knows and I think should be addressing this. However my question is where is the proof that Choong is openly teaching theistic evolution in the Metro NY Presbytery?



jwright82 said:


> Just for the record there is not one single shred of actual evidence that suggests that we evolved from primates. Evolutionists take evidence interpret it through the lens of their theory than turn around and try to sell it as evidence for evolution, this is always a circuler argument. For example the fossil record does one bone being barried deeper than another bone imply a genetic relationship between the two? *NO!* It does no such thing. That is a bad logical leap that begs the question. I am always amazed at how bad the reasoning is by evolutionists.


Thanks. Always good to be reminded what the record states.


----------



## Tripel

Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?


----------



## jwright82

> His blog nor BioLogos are open forums of the Metro NY Presbytery. While Choong has made his thoughts public I still do not see where his ideas are openly taught in Metro NY Presbytery. The claim is that a Presbytery in our denomination is openly allowing theistic evolution to be taught. I am commanded and also chose to not to believe this without proof. Metro NY Presbytery now knows and I think should be addressing this. However my question is where is the proof that Choong is openly teaching theistic evolution in the Metro NY Presbytery



I'm sorry I thought you were asking about the article in the OP not what he was teaching at his church. I got confused.



> Thanks. Always good to be reminded what the record states.



Oh it goes deeper than that. I love to sit back and read evolutionists and count how many logical fallacies they commit in presenting their case. But you welcome.


----------



## SemperEruditio

Wes White said:


> Frank, doesn't posting your views on the internet constitute "openly teaching"? All these statements are public documents. In addition, you don't have to look hard. This is clearly being taught at Redeemer in NYC. Just do a search on "Ron Choong" and "Redeemer."


 
Found it...or at least what I think it would be. All the ACT courses seem to have the same description but by the title I assume this is where theistic evolution would be taught.

School of Gospel Foundations - redeemer.com

Now has the PCA put out something like the OPC about creation? I gotta go pick up my beautiful bride and attend a convocation so no time to google for now.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Tripel said:


> Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?


 
For starters, he is out of line with the WCF where he points out that the WCF is wrong according to his interpretation.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

TE Choong made those statements in 2006. Why in the world is someone just now noticing this? 

Frankly his "Theistic Evolutionary" views look to be the least of his problems with the Westminster Confession according to that blog post.


----------



## Zenas

Why is this man in the PCA?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> TE Choong made those statements in 2006. Why in the world is someone just now noticing this?
> 
> Frankly his "Theistic Evolutionary" views look to be the least of his problems with the Westminster Confession according to that blog post.


 
My guess is that no one was reading his blog until now.


----------



## torstar

Curt said:


> jjraby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many theologians who believe in pre-adamic hominids. If I remember correctly, F.F. Bruce is among them. That doesn't mean they're right.
Click to expand...

 
Stott does in his commentary on Romans chapter 5.


----------



## Wes White

It's being taught in Metro New York. He lives in New York. Where do you think he's blogging from, Uganda?


----------



## sastark

Wes White said:


> It's being taught in Metro New York. He lives in New York. Where do you think he's blogging from, Uganda?


 
Knowing missionaries in Uganda, I can say with some measure of confidence that this sort of unbiblical teaching would not be tolerated there.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Willem van Oranje said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, he is out of line with the WCF where he points out that the WCF is wrong according to his interpretation.
Click to expand...




> One of the most important and influential creedal statement today is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), a 17th century document. However, its dated view of the creation account has made it an obstacle for fruitful science and theology conversations.



His church then should be independant. But how many PCAs and others for that matter agree with every tenant of the WCF?


----------



## Zenas

To be sure, affirming theistic evolution as opposed to 6-day creation is a tad different than which lapsarian view or estachatological stance you take.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Reformed Baptist said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, he is out of line with the WCF where he points out that the WCF is wrong according to his interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most important and influential creedal statement today is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), a 17th century document. However, its dated view of the creation account has made it an obstacle for fruitful science and theology conversations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His church then should be independant. But how many PCAs and others for that matter agree with every tenant of the WCF?
Click to expand...

 
"tenant of the WCF"? I would love to be one of those. How much does the rent cost? I love the WCF so much, I want to live in it. 

If I were a "tenant of the WCF," would that mean that everyone has to agree with me all the time?


----------



## SRoper

SemperEruditio said:


> Now has the PCA put out something like the OPC about creation? I gotta go pick up my beautiful bride and attend a convocation so no time to google for now.


 
Report of the Creation Study Committee


----------



## torstar

Willem van Oranje said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, he is out of line with the WCF where he points out that the WCF is wrong according to his interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most important and influential creedal statement today is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), a 17th century document. However, its dated view of the creation account has made it an obstacle for fruitful science and theology conversations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His church then should be independant. But how many PCAs and others for that matter agree with every tenant of the WCF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tenant of the WCF"? I would love to be one of those. How much does the rent cost? I love the WCF so much, I want to live in it.
> 
> If I were a "tenant of the WCF," would that mean that everyone has to agree with me all the time?
Click to expand...



The maintenance fees are almost unbearable.


----------



## Zenas

> A kind of “theistic evolutionary” view that has important historical relevance for confessional Presbyterians is the one that allows that Adam’s body was the product of evolutionary development (second causes working alone under divine providence), and that his special creation involved the imparting of a rational soul to a highly-developed hominid. This view has been associated with James Woodrow and Benjamin Warfield (at least early in his career). We can supply a strong critique of such a construct from exegesis of Genesis 1—2, where, as John Murray observed (Collected Writings, 2:8), in Genesis 2:7 the man became an animate being by the in-breathing, and by implication was not one beforehand (for his body to have had animal ancestry, the man’s ancestors must have been animate beings). We may also critique the view from the anthropology involved: man is a body-soul nexus, and the body must have the capacities to support the expression of God’s image; such a body cannot be the product of second causes alone. Finally, we should note that this kind of “theistic evolution” is an unstable metaphysical hybrid: it tries to combine the naturalistic picture of the development of the capabilities necessary to support the human soul, with the supernaturalist acknowledgment of the divine origin of what distinguishes us from the animals. This combines elements from incompatible metaphysical positions.



-PCA Creation Study Committee


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Willem van Oranje said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where all is Choong out of line with the WCF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, he is out of line with the WCF where he points out that the WCF is wrong according to his interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most important and influential creedal statement today is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), a 17th century document. However, its dated view of the creation account has made it an obstacle for fruitful science and theology conversations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His church then should be independant. But how many PCAs and others for that matter agree with every tenant of the WCF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tenant of the WCF"? I would love to be one of those. How much does the rent cost? I love the WCF so much, I want to live in it.
> 
> If I were a "tenant of the WCF," would that mean that everyone has to agree with me all the time?
Click to expand...


That's what you get when you work in commercial real estate and comment on stuff. 

But to be a tenant in the WCF I charge $100/month. Email for application.


----------



## lynnie

I really appreciate much of what Keller has brought to the church at large, his gifting is tremedous. But his book Reason for God expresses belief in theistic evolution so this is no surprise. Many WTS people also accept it in the BB Warfield tradition, and as I have said here a few times, you can't fight BB Warfield.


----------



## Dearly Bought

It doesn't appear that theistic evolution is the worst of Choong's errors:



> Let me begin with a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of the Christian faith. Do Christians worship one god or three gods? Both options are incorrect. We worship the god who is one! The maker of heaven and earth, who spoke to Adam and Eve, saved Noah and his family, called Abram out of Mesopotamia, named Jacob Israel, called Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, and who guided Joshua into Canaan, is the God who is one and, not one god. The shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 [Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one ] and James 2:19 [You believe that God is one; you do well...] refer not to one God but God who is one. Christianity is not a monotheistic faith. It is a trinitarian faith. We have become theologically corrupted by well-meaning but biblically-challenged worship songs which have become a major source of our biblical knowledge, so we sing “The Lord our God is One Lord”, suggesting that we worship one God rather than the God who is one. But who can understand this mathematical conundrum? It is easier to say that we worship one God expressed in three forms rather than a unitary of three gods. Yet this has no biblical warrant. It is just a cop-out. We should be bold enough to say that God revealed in the Scriptures as the Father, the Son and the Spirit are titles describing the three distinct persons of the trinitarian godhead, for which any attempt at mathematical formulation will collapse. What they have in common is the same will. This we need not wonder about or guess at - they do not contradict each other. It is this character of God which makes our Lord one. In every other respect we do not have a biblical description of a singular god.
> (emphasis is mine, link here)



Correct me if I'm reading something erroneous into this... but.... isn't this a mere economic trinitarianism which appears to describe the Trinity's unity as solely volitional and not _ontological_??? In other words, isn't this a veiled form of polytheism? A slideshow of a "Lecture on the Triunity" on the ACT website seems to convey the same idea. The slideshow also contains the statement: "The term 'Father' does not exhaust the description of God. In a patriarchal society, it is the best referent."


----------



## Zenas

You read him correctly in my estimation. The most telling portion being, "What they have in common is the same will. This we need not wonder about or guess at - they do not contradict each other. It is this character of God which makes our Lord one."

This man is dangerous.


----------



## Brandon1

Dearly Bought said:


> It doesn't appear that theistic evolution is the worst of Choong's errors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me begin with a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of the Christian faith. Do Christians worship one god or three gods? Both options are incorrect. We worship the god who is one! The maker of heaven and earth, who spoke to Adam and Eve, saved Noah and his family, called Abram out of Mesopotamia, named Jacob Israel, called Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, and who guided Joshua into Canaan, is the God who is one and, not one god. The shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 [Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one ] and James 2:19 [You believe that God is one; you do well...] refer not to one God but God who is one. Christianity is not a monotheistic faith. It is a trinitarian faith. We have become theologically corrupted by well-meaning but biblically-challenged worship songs which have become a major source of our biblical knowledge, so we sing “The Lord our God is One Lord”, suggesting that we worship one God rather than the God who is one. But who can understand this mathematical conundrum? It is easier to say that we worship one God expressed in three forms rather than a unitary of three gods. Yet this has no biblical warrant. It is just a cop-out. We should be bold enough to say that God revealed in the Scriptures as the Father, the Son and the Spirit are titles describing the three distinct persons of the trinitarian godhead, for which any attempt at mathematical formulation will collapse. What they have in common is the same will. This we need not wonder about or guess at - they do not contradict each other. It is this character of God which makes our Lord one. In every other respect we do not have a biblical description of a singular god.
> (emphasis is mine, link here)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm reading something erroneous into this... but.... isn't this a mere economic trinitarianism which appears to describe the Trinity's unity as solely volitional and not _ontological_??? In other words, isn't this a veiled form of polytheism? A slideshow of a "Lecture on the Triunity" on the ACT website seems to convey the same idea. The slideshow also contains the statement: "The term 'Father' does not exhaust the description of God. In a patriarchal society, it is the best referent."
Click to expand...

 
I, for one, don't think your analysis is totally correct. He is not saying they are ontologically different, but he is (in an unclear way) showing the great mystery of the God we worship being Three distinct persons in one essence (or if you prefer Van Til's terminology, one Person). I'm not sure he's helpful, but I don't think he's being heretical here either.


----------



## SemperEruditio

Dearly Bought said:


> It doesn't appear that theistic evolution is the worst of Choong's errors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me begin with a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of the Christian faith. Do Christians worship one god or three gods? Both options are incorrect. We worship the god who is one! The maker of heaven and earth, who spoke to Adam and Eve, saved Noah and his family, called Abram out of Mesopotamia, named Jacob Israel, called Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, and who guided Joshua into Canaan, is the God who is one and, not one god. The shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 [Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one ] and James 2:19 [You believe that God is one; you do well...] refer not to one God but God who is one. Christianity is not a monotheistic faith. It is a trinitarian faith. We have become theologically corrupted by well-meaning but biblically-challenged worship songs which have become a major source of our biblical knowledge, so we sing “The Lord our God is One Lord”, suggesting that we worship one God rather than the God who is one. But who can understand this mathematical conundrum? It is easier to say that we worship one God expressed in three forms rather than a unitary of three gods. Yet this has no biblical warrant. It is just a cop-out. We should be bold enough to say that God revealed in the Scriptures as the Father, the Son and the Spirit are titles describing the three distinct persons of the trinitarian godhead, for which any attempt at mathematical formulation will collapse. What they have in common is the same will. This we need not wonder about or guess at - they do not contradict each other. It is this character of God which makes our Lord one. In every other respect we do not have a biblical description of a singular god.
> (emphasis is mine, link here)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm reading something erroneous into this... but.... isn't this a mere economic trinitarianism which appears to describe the Trinity's unity as solely volitional and not _ontological_??? In other words, isn't this a veiled form of polytheism? A slideshow of a "Lecture on the Triunity" on the ACT website seems to convey the same idea. The slideshow also contains the statement: *"The term 'Father' does not exhaust the description of God. In a patriarchal society, it is the best referent."*
Click to expand...


I don't see the problem with the bold portion. "Father" is the best we can understand God to be in our society. That is why there is the gender neutral Bible because feminist oppose the fact that we were at one time a patriarchal society. The problem with the Church in the US is that it has become too maternal. However back to the point...no one word can exhaust the description of our infinite Lord and "Father" is no exception.


----------



## Zenas

Brandon,

He clearly says the thing that makes God "one" is the agreement of will. God is not, as a part of His being, one. He is one because he agrees with himself. He's advocating for a very thinly veiled polytheism, not trinitarianism.


----------



## Dearly Bought

SemperEruditio said:


> I don't see the problem with the bold portion. "Father" is the best we can understand God to be in our society. That is why there is the gender neutral Bible because feminist oppose the fact that we were at one time a patriarchal society. The problem with the Church in the US is that it has become too maternal. However back to the point...no one word can exhaust the description of our infinite Lord and "Father" is no exception.


 
I don't have any problem with the idea alone that "the term 'Father' does not exhaust the description of God." What concerns me is that the statement about patriarchal society seems to suggest that "Father" would not be an appropriate referent for God in a matriarchal society.


----------



## Tripel

lynnie said:


> I really appreciate much of what Keller has brought to the church at large, his gifting is tremedous. *But his book Reason for God expresses belief in theistic evolution so this is no surprise.*


 
Lynnie,
That's just not true. He references Francis Collins who DOES believe in theistic evolution, but Keller is pretty clear that he himself does not.


----------



## lynnie

Tripel- pulled out my book- page 87, 3rd paragraph, page 94-95. Very clear. " For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory." Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is a song. etc.

My former (creationist) pastor was from Keller's church originally, we were in that Presbytery, and it was just common knowledge that TK is a theistic evolutionist, as are many, many PCAers. BB Warfield is the canonical defense


----------



## Tripel

Lynnie, I'm familiar with the statement you quoted, and that is what I was referring to. What he's describing there is not theistic evolution. Yes, he uses the scary phrase "natural selection" but that is not synonymous with evolution. He's saying that he's uncertain how exactly creation occurred, but he believes it happened over a long period of time and God was the orchestrator. What do you think he means when he says "I reject the concept of evolution as all-encompassing theory"? Seems pretty clear to me that he's distinguishing himself from theistic evolutionists such as Collins.

As for the "common knowledge that TK is a theistic evolutionist", well, I don't put much stock in that. Frankly, it's "common knowledge" to a lot of people on the PB that Keller is all sorts of things. He's a controversial and popular figure, so a lot gets pinned on him, both wrongly and rightly.


----------



## Zenas

The statement quoted simultaneously allows Kelly to claim he has rejected creationism and opted for "theistic natural selection" and at the same time plausibly deny the theistic evolution lable. 

I'll have equivocation for one please.

Keller increasingly strikes me as one who's pushing the boundaries of acceptability in the PCA in public while vastly exceeding them in private.


----------



## lynnie

Tripel- when Adam nursed at the breast of Momma primate, who had concieved him with Daddy primate, and both of them died normal animal deaths, and God breathed a human soul into him to make the first man, and death refers to spiritual death not animal death, this is not creationism.


----------



## sastark

In addition to the Reasons for God citation, Keller has written for the well-known theistic evolutionist website BioLogos. See his piece here (link is to a PDF): http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf


----------



## Tripel

Lynnie,
So can you point me to where Keller has said he believes man evolved from apes?


----------



## Zenas

Evolution is "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. ".

Keller states that he believes in natural selection guided by God. Altering the gene pool through natural selection as a process is, by definition, evolution. While Tim Keller cutely denies being a theistic evolutionist, he is, by definition, a theistic evolutionist.


----------



## lynnie

sastark....excellent, thank you.

Tripel, that link seems to well sum up the current various views. Keller is a bit elusive, but certainly is not a classical creationist at all.


----------



## Zenas

You don't even have to retreat to that Lynnie. Keller is by definition and his own admission a theistic evolutionist. I'm getting particularly weary of things like his frustrating equivocations.


----------



## Tripel

Andrew,
Anybody can include "by definition" into a claim, but it doesn't make it so.

I'm not going to go on and on with this argument. You seem to know what Keller is better than he does. Thank you for clearing it up for us.


----------



## fredtgreco

The issue is that "natural selection" is contrary to the Word of God. Not because of primates, not because of macro evolutionary theory, but because natural selection involves death, and death before the Fall. That destroys the gospel.


----------



## Zenas

Tripel,

Words mean certain things and all we have to go off of are Tim Keller's words. You belie this fact when you rely on his statement that he is "not a theistic evolutionist". While he denies the category, he affirms the definition of evolution and states he believes it was guided by God, therefore making him none other than a theistic evolutionist. Evolution has a definition, a definition which includes the process that Keller says he affirms. If he'd like to amend his claims, he's free to. Don't pick up your toys and leave the playground just because the game isn't going your way.


----------



## ken.kang-hui

rom Keller's published works and what I know about him during my days at Redeemer, I think it is safe to at least conclude the following:

1) He believes in the framework hypothesis for explaining creation, which the PCA considers within the bounds of the Westminster Standards and do not require an exception.

2) It is not clear that Keller himself personally believes in Theistic Evolution, but he considers it a viable option for those who hold to Reformed convictions. Whatever his own personal convictions, he has never taught either Creationism or Theistic Evolution as THE correct view. He has, however, clearly spoken out against Evolution as a theory of live.

3) Whatever his views on evolution, Keller has clearly stated that he believes the historicity of Adam to be the only viable option for Reformed Christians. However, he is not willing to say it is salvific issue. He also believes that there is room for believing that Adam may have evolved from hominids, although he has not stated that this is his personal view and has not taught it at his church.

Most of this can be gleaned form his Biologos essay at http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf; I've filled in the gaps based on my own experience.


----------



## Scott1

> *ken.kang-hui*
> the framework hypothesis for explaining creation, which the PCA considers within the bounds of the Westminster Standards and do not require an exception.



I think I understand what you are saying, but would explain it this way:

The PCA adopted the findings of a study paper which proposed that four views of creation _could_ be "non-fundamental" exceptions within the Westminster Standards. Study papers of this kind are to be given "due and serious" consideration by sessions and presbyteries, but are not absolutely binding on them.

Even Dr. Sproul at one time held the view you mentioned (but later changed his mind to the classical view, which he now holds).

However, anything other than the "literal" (classical) view, "in the space of six days" in the Westminster Confession would be an exception, including the view you mention. The Presbytery would be free to grant or not grant that as an exception, some presbyteries would not. All presbyteries would need to thoroughly investigation the implications of a candidate requesting such an exception. But it is an exception to the standard, and must be requested as that.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

To teach that contra-confessional opinions are acceptable or plausible is to teach against the confession, no matter what ones private opinion might be.

Furthermore, I think it's a real problem if a pastor of a Christian church is not teaching creationism. If that is the case, he is not teaching the whole counsel of God.


----------



## Tripel

Zenas said:


> Tripel,
> 
> Words mean certain things and all we have to go off of are Tim Keller's words. You belie this fact when you rely on his statement that he is "not a theistic evolutionist". While he denies the category, he affirms the definition of evolution and states he believes it was guided by God, therefore making him none other than a theistic evolutionist. Evolution has a definition, a definition which includes the process that Keller says he affirms. If he'd like to amend his claims, he's free to.



Yes, you're right. Evolution has a definition. Natural selection is a process of evolution, but it is not evolution itself. 



> Don't pick up your toys and leave the playground just because the game isn't going your way


.

Seriously?


----------



## Zenas

Genetic modification as a result of natural selection = evolution, according to definition. Your misstatement ignores the first portion of what I said. I obviously agree that natural selection is a process of evolution, that's implicit in the definition I used. It's the process plus the result that equals evolution. With that in mind, your conclusion states an obvious and uncontested fact, while ignoring what I've said. 

Seriously.


----------



## fredtgreco

As I have said it is really simple:

Natural selection = death before the Fall

Death before the Fall = denial of the reality and nature of sin

Denial of the nature of sin = denial of need for salvation

Denial of need for salvation = denial of the necessity and fact of the Work of Christ

denial of the necessity and fact of the Work of Christ = Christ is a liar

Ideas have consequences.


----------



## SRoper

Scott1 said:


> The PCA adopted the findings of a study paper which proposed that four views of creation _could_ be "non-fundamental" exceptions within the Westminster Standards. Study papers of this kind are to be given "due and serious" consideration by sessions and presbyteries, but are not absolutely binding on them.
> 
> Even Dr. Sproul at one time held the view you mentioned (but later changed his mind to the classical view, which he now holds).
> 
> However, anything other than the "literal" (classical) view, "in the space of six days" in the Westminster Confession would be an exception, including the view you mention. The Presbytery would be free to grant or not grant that as an exception, some presbyteries would not. All presbyteries would need to thoroughly investigation the implications of a candidate requesting such an exception. But it is an exception to the standard, and must be requested as that.


 
I don't think that's quite right either. While what you stated was one of the possibilities suggested, the report said it is also possible that certain alternate views are not exceptions to the Standards at all. This was left up to each presbytery.

---------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 PM ----------




fredtgreco said:


> As I have said it is really simple:
> 
> Natural selection = death before the Fall
> 
> Death before the Fall = denial of the reality and nature of sin
> 
> Denial of the nature of sin = denial of need for salvation
> 
> Denial of need for salvation = denial of the necessity and fact of the Work of Christ
> 
> denial of the necessity and fact of the Work of Christ = Christ is a liar
> 
> Ideas have consequences.


 
"Death before the Fall = denial of the reality and nature of sin" is what's in question. I think everyone agrees that there was some kind of death before the fall even if it's only cellular death. Did animals die before the fall? I think it's possible. It's hard for me to see animal death as a moral evil without it being accompanied with a command to be vegetarian. Ideas have consequences.


----------



## fredtgreco

SRoper said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said it is really simple:
> 
> Natural selection = death before the Fall
> 
> Death before the Fall = denial of the reality and nature of sin
> 
> Denial of the nature of sin = denial of need for salvation
> 
> Denial of need for salvation = denial of the necessity and fact of the Work of Christ
> 
> denial of the necessity and fact of the Work of Christ = Christ is a liar
> 
> Ideas have consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Death before the Fall = denial of the reality and nature of sin" is what's in question. I think everyone agrees that there was some kind of death before the fall even if it's only cellular death. Did animals die before the fall? I think it's possible. It's hard for me to see animal death as a moral evil without it being accompanied with a command to be vegetarian. Ideas have consequences.
Click to expand...

 It remains to be seen that death can be applied to plants, since they do not have _nephesh_. How would we know that there was cellular death? What verse discusses that? What verse tells us that animals died before the Fall? Or that now *post-Fall* the liberty to eat animals implies that it was permissible *pre-Fall*? After all, God commands the killing of (certain) people now. Does that mean (by logical consequence) that He commanded it pre-Fall? This is typical of an attempt to rehabilitate a heterodox view that has been denied for Millennia by Christians. (Note: I am not saying that Keller or any poster here holds that view).

The Bible is clear:

Death comes from sin, and sin from Adam:
[bible]Romans 5:12-14[/bible]
[bible]1 Corinthians 15:56[/bible]
[bible]Hebrews 2:14[/bible]

Death is the result of sin:
[bible]James 1:15[/bible]

Sin spreads its consequences to creation, which longs for liberation.
[bible]Romans 8:18-23[/bible]

Is this really so hard?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't think many understand how fundamental to the Christian religion a Biblical anthropology is. We will never understand the weight of the Fall, the image of God that was marred, or the nature of our federal relationship to Adam and Christ is if we don't ground them properly. It is no mistake that Roman Catholic, Arminian, Lutheran, and Reformed anthropologies are fundamentally different at very key areas. You cannot simply tack a Reformed theology on to an arbitrary anthropology and make any sense of it.


----------



## TimV

> Lynnie,
> So can you point me to where Keller has said he believes man evolved from apes?



He comes right out and says it in the place Lynnie quoted from, unless you decide to play word games. Natural selection in that context is just what NT Wright and all the other hipsters say. Adam's ancestors were hominids (who died, as Pastor Greco pointed out). What else? A head of lettuce? Talking about sticking heads in sand...sheesh....

He defines all encompassing theory to mean evolution can't save you. Read the book, and the guy he quotes as "balanced".


----------



## ZackF

lynnie said:


> Tripel- pulled out my book- page 87, 3rd paragraph, page 94-95. Very clear. " For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory." Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is a song. etc.
> 
> My former (creationist) pastor was from Keller's church originally, we were in that Presbytery, and it was just common knowledge that TK is a theistic evolutionist, as are many, many PCAers. BB Warfield is the canonical defense


 
Many of "many, many" are in the closet about it though.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

To be frank I think a lot of people's denials of 6/24 is related to their fear of how people will view them at dinner parties and academic events.


----------



## kvanlaan

Was scoffed at yesterday at the office for presuming that the bible is a "history book" when the world has 'disproven' so much of it... (It was the six day creation bit and the 'sun standing still' that was the catalyst there).

So much for the dinner party circuit!


----------



## bouletheou

I used to be a theistic evolutionist. I'll tell you straight out why I was. My father is a scientist. A PhD in molecular biology. I wanted to make the Christian faith "credible" to him, so I mythologized the creation account in order to try and harmonize it with modern scientific theories. What I got wrong is that nobody is ever argued into the Christian faith. People believe savingly on Jesus Christ because God the Father has elected them from before the foundation of the world, God the Son has purchased them with his blood, and God the Holy Spirit has quickened their dead hearts. Intellectual arguments are, at best, ancillary to that process.

I discovered the hard way what Pastor Greco says, the theistic evolutionary model needs death to function, but the New Testament states clearly that death is an enemy, a punishment, an "unnatural" state, so to speak. And we instinctively know that it is whenever we face it. So either I had to give up on the idea of death as an evil (some go with the fear of death being the evil, not death itself, but that doesn't end up working any better.) Or else I had to join the gnostics and assert that the physical creation was not, in fact, good.

Neither option presented me with any fewer problems than just believing the scriptures as they are written. Once you posit an omnipotent being who can bring a universe into being simply by speaking, then anything that comes after that is pretty much a piece of cake. In the end I bowed and admitted God was God. But, like Lewis, I was a most reluctant convert for a long time.

Oh, and the ultimate irony? In 2001 I was able to lead my father to Christ, and a literal Adam and the historicity of Genesis 1-3 was no obstacle at all. Christ is the main thing, and once you really believe on Christ, lots of these so-called obstacles just cease to be important. My father is wrestling with these things, as you might expect, but I'm content to let him wrestle in his own way. He and I have great discussions on these things now, discussions which involve good single malts and sitting around the table till the wee hours of the morning.


----------



## littlepeople

SRoper said:


> "Death before the Fall = denial of the reality and nature of sin" is what's in question. I think everyone agrees that there was some kind of death before the fall even if it's only cellular death. Did animals die before the fall? I think it's possible. It's hard for me to see animal death as a moral evil without it being accompanied with a command to be vegetarian. Ideas have consequences.


 
I've always read Genesis 9: 3-4 and Leviticus 17: 3-4 to be clear indicators that animal death IS a moral evil apart from proper sacrifice. Isn't that the point of the sacrificial system? God provides for the needs of his people physically and spiritually through the death of another. Yet to kill is evil, and the origin of death is sin. 

If meat is given to Noah as food in Genesis 9:4, how can we assume it was lawful prior to that point?

Notice in Leviticus 17: “Any man from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, and has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people."

Eating meat without proper sacrifice = bloodguiltiness (of the animal)

Please, no one think I am making a case for vegetarianism. I am making the case that meat eating is not the proper creation order. It is a provision that serves as a unique picture of the cost of redemption.


Natural selection prior to the fall, REQUIRES death and bloodshed prior to the fall. Is God arbitrarily restricting the shedding of blood post-fall, but allowing it to be common pre-fall? I'm askin


----------



## bouletheou

I'll also tell you from personal experience that once you decide to chuck Gen 1-3 to be credible to the intelligensia, it doesn't stop there. A six day creation isn't the only "embarrassment" after all. How did Noah get all those animals on that boat? How did Moses get all those people across the Red Sea in the time allotted? Can you really believe that a giant fish swallowed a man and then spit him out alive after three days? How do you resolve the synoptic problem, really? etc etc.

And yet the Lord Jesus clearly thought Genesis 1-3 told us something objectively true about human marriage, and seemed to take its historicity for granted. He also mentioned Noah, the feeding of the Children of Israel in the wilderness with bread from heaven, and Jonah... some of the most "embarrassing" ones... as though they actually existed. So then you start wondering if Jesus knew what he was talking about. And you might get something like the "confession" that's in the back of the PCUSA hymnal which basically said that Jesus in his humanity was basically just as ignorant of the world as the rest of his contemporaries.

It's a slippery, slippery slope and the landing point is well defined and littered with victims.


----------



## ken.kang-hui

bouletheou said:


> I'll also tell you from personal experience that once you decide to chuck Gen 1-3 to be credible to the intelligensia, it doesn't stop there. A six day creation isn't the only "embarrassment" after all. How did Noah get all those animals on that boat? How did Moses get all those people across the Red Sea in the time allotted? Can you really believe that a giant fish swallowed a man and then spit him out alive after three days? How do you resolve the synoptic problem, really? etc etc.



Brian,

With all due respect, I don't think we should assume that everyone who believes in the Framework Hypothesis is doing so because they are "embarrassed" by Creationism. Obviously that is the case for some, but there are many others who do so because they are trying to reconcile the Bible with science in an intellectually honest AND Biblically faithful manner (the same as those who hold to a literal 24/6 Creationism) and/or trying to make sense of the literary style of Genesis 1. These people still hold to the historicity of Adam and the veracityof miracles such as Jonah and the fish and the feeding of the five thousand.


----------



## TimV

> How did Noah get all those animals on that boat?



It's easy. You just do like Keller and deny the flood covered the whole earth. Then you only have to gather a handful of animals around the base of mount Ararat.


----------



## ken.kang-hui

TimV said:


> How did Noah get all those animals on that boat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy. You just do like Keller and deny the flood covered the whole earth. Then you only have to gather a handful of animals around the base of mount Ararat.
Click to expand...


Tim,

Just curious, where did you read or hear that Keller denies a worldwide flood?

Thank you.


----------



## Theoretical

Zenas said:


> The statement quoted simultaneously allows Kelly to claim he has rejected creationism and opted for "theistic natural selection" and at the same time plausibly deny the theistic evolution lable.
> 
> I'll have equivocation for one please.
> 
> Keller increasingly strikes me as one who's pushing the boundaries of acceptability in the PCA in public while vastly exceeding them in private.


 
I would tend to agree with this. What seems more troubling is that he provides a significant shield for much, much more liberal folks than him to teach and gain footholds. In this respect, he may be a liberal fellow-traveler.

Rev. Choong's theistic evolution is the least of his theological problems, and he has no business teaching in the PCA with those views. Frankly, I'd hope a member would come under discipline for some of those.

The problem I fear is that we've been down this road before in the mainline presbyterian churches where moderate and "nice" conservatives tolerate and coexist with liberals and eventually become completely co-opted. While I'm not surprised, why can't a liberal ever just be honest and *leave* to a church that agrees with his views?


----------



## bouletheou

Kenneth,

I'm not a framework guy by an means. I don't like the view one bit, but I wasn't saying that framework necessarily led to the conclusions above. I do say that Theistic Evolution does, or can. So I'm not saying that the framework hypothesis and theisic evolution are the same thing. They are certainly ideas which could have a lot of overlap, but they are not identical. 

What I was trying to say (apparently unsuccesfully) is that in my own experience, when theistic evolution is embraced because one wants to influence a certain portion of the world, it leads other places you don't realize at first. You do it because you want to lead people to Christ. Pretty soon the Christ you're trying to lead them to isn't the Christ of the scripture. That was my only point.

Kindest Regards,
Brian


----------



## ken.kang-hui

Brian,



bouletheou said:


> I'm not a framework guy by an means. I don't like the view one bit, but I wasn't saying that framework necessarily led to the conclusions above. I do say that Theistic Evolution does, or can. So I'm not saying that the framework hypothesis and theisic evolution are the same thing. They are certainly ideas which could have a lot of overlap, but they are not identical.



Sorry for misunderstanding your post. In this case, the fault clearly lies with this reader.



bouletheou said:


> What I was trying to say (apparently unsuccesfully) is that in my own experience, when theistic evolution is embraced because one wants to influence a certain portion of the world, it leads other places you don't realize at first. You do it because you want to lead people to Christ. Pretty soon the Christ you're trying to lead them to isn't the Christ of the scripture. That was my only point.



I am in agreement with you about the dangers of embracing Theistic Evolution. Take a look at Enns, Longman, Waltke, etc. and you can see that it seems to lead inevitably to a denial of or equivocation on the historicity of Adam. BTW, I remember seeing a quote from Keller where he states that often people mistakenly assume he advocates Theistic Evolution because he does not believe in a young Earth.

Also, I am continuing to pray for you, your family, and your congregation.

Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Here's Tim Keller in his own words on his view: An Interview with Timothy Keller | First Things



> *In The Reason for God, you make a very brief argument for the validity of evolution within a limited sphere. It would seem to me that apologists for the faith must address this issue at some point. But doing so can call into question the historicity of the Fall and the very need for a savior. How do you talk about evolution without confusing people?*
> 
> Oh, it’s a little confusing, but actually I’m just in the same place where the Catholics are, as far as I can tell. The Catholic Church has always been able to hold on to a belief in a historical Fall—it really happened, it’s not just representative of the fact that the human race has kind of gone bad in various ways. At the same time, if you say, “There is no God and everything happened by evolution,” naturalistic evolution—then you have “theistic evolution”: God just started things years ago and everything has come into being through the process of evolution. You have young-Earth six-day creationism, which is “God created everything in six 24-hour days.” To me, all three of those positions have perhaps insurmountable difficulties.
> 
> The fact is, the one that most people consider the most conservative, which is the young-Earth, six-day creation, has all kinds of problems with the text, as we know. If it’s really true, then you have problems of contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2. I don’t like the JEPD theory. I don’t like the theory that these are two somewhat contradictory creation stories that some editor stuck together—some pretty stupid editor stuck together. I think therefore you’ve got a problem with how long are the days before the sun shows up in the fourth day. You have problems really reading the Bible in a straightforward way with a young-Earth, six 24-hour day theory. You’ve got some problems with the theistic evolution, because then you have to ask yourself, “Was there no Adam and Eve? Was there no Fall?” So here’s what I like—the messy approach, which is I think there was an Adam and Eve. I think there was a real Fall. I think that happened. I also think that there also was a very long process probably, you know, that the earth probably is very old, and there was some kind of process of natural selection that God guided and used, and maybe intervened in. And that’s just the messy part. I’m not a scientist. I’m not going to go beyond that.
> 
> I do know that I say in the book, “This is an absolute red herring—to get mired in this before you look at the certainties of the faith. Because the fact is that real orthodox believers with a high view of Scripture are all over the map on this. I can line up ten really smart people in all those different buckets, which I’ll call “theistic evolution,” “young-Earth creationism,” and let’s call it “progressive creationism” or “semi-theistic evolution.” There are all these different views. And when you see a lot of smart people disagreeing on this stuff, well . . .
> 
> How could there have been death before Adam and Eve fell? The answer is, I don’t know. But all I know is, didn’t animals eat bugs? Didn’t bugs eat plants? There must have been death. In other words, when you realize, “Oh wait, this is really complicated,” then you realize, “I don’t have to figure this out before I figure out is Jesus Christ raised from the dead.”
> 
> Over the years—it’s not bad, but I’ve gotten sort of hit from both sides.



It seems pretty clear to me that he's willing to allow others to hold to definite views that internally cohere and he's willing to adopt a position somewhere in the middle.

I just don't understand this position, however. He only pushes the "insurmountable difficulties" in adopting a position he doesn't like to the area of reconciling those views to other areas of orthodoxy where one doesn't have to speculate on the plain meaning of the text. As we've seen with Mr. Choong, his view digs up the foundation of Federal Theology. I find this difficulty to be much more insurmountable than trying to simply accept the Creation account as historical as it makes much better sense of other very clear Biblical truths about the first Adam.

In other words, this view turns basic hermeneutics on its head where we are to move from the clear, didactic principles to shed light on other portions of Scripture. Romans 5 and 8 are clear about the nature of Adam. For the sake of literary analysis, however, Gen 1 and 2 _control_ didactic teaching on man's federal relationship and how sin and death are imputed. I personally think that Genesis 1 and 2 are clear but even if I admit they are not, I don't see how anyone can permit a detected literary style to overthrow didactic teaching. Thus, the "insurmountably difficulty" is now pushed to making sense of Romans 5 and 8 where it speaks plainly about the Fall.


----------



## SRoper

Someone post-fall is allowed to kill an animal without moral significance. There is no indication that this was different before the fall. Yes, perhaps it was different, but perhaps it wasn't. It is going beyond scripture to rule one of these possibilities out.

All the verses tying death to the fall are consistent with human death which scripture tells us does have moral significance. The evidence that it applies to animals as well is rather weak.


----------



## littlepeople

He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people.

Weak? What would constitute strong evidence?


----------



## au5t1n

God killed the first animal in Gen. 3:21, simultaneously providing the first animal sacrifice and the first typological symbol of being covered by the blood of another.


----------



## au5t1n

Joshua said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> God killed the first animal in Gen. 3:21, simultaneously providing the first animal sacrifice and the first typological symbol of being covered by the blood of another.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and was _post-_fall (I know you know. Not a correction, just an affirmation).
Click to expand...

 
And also, if animal death meant absolutely nothing (i.e. it was "very good" before the Fall), then the significance of Adam and Eve (and future men) being passed over because of the typological blood of a dead animal would be lost. The High Priest might just as well have sacrificed a tree on the Day of Atonement.


----------



## Peairtach

How do OECs deal with Genesis 1:30?

_And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. (ESV)_

This seems to indicate vegetarianism for animals, and yet popular science - and presumably OEC - would say that certain animals were meat eaters long before Man appeared.

I'm genuinely interested in how OECs deal with this verse.

*Quote from Joshua*


> In fact, we understand that Eden was paradise.



It _was_ paradise, but the fact that _even before the Fall_ it was just a template and pointer to a better world which it would one day give place to, when meditated upon, gives you a different perspective on this world.


----------



## Grimmson

Richard Tallach said:


> How do OECs deal with Genesis 1:30?
> 
> _And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. (ESV)_
> 
> This seems to indicate vegetarianism for animals, and yet popular science - and presumably OEC - would say that certain animals were meat eaters long before Man appeared.


 
What am curious about with YECs is if God reshaped the natural eating and hunting habits of spiders and sharks, along with other species, after the fall? Which also plays into one's view of God's natural enviromental cycles for such. Of course the OECs would assume that sharks still eat what they eat now and same is true for spiders. It is amussing to think of a black widow spider spinning a web to catch falling fruit.


----------



## Mushroom

Grimmson said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do OECs deal with Genesis 1:30?
> 
> _And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. (ESV)_
> 
> This seems to indicate vegetarianism for animals, and yet popular science - and presumably OEC - would say that certain animals were meat eaters long before Man appeared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What am curious about with YECs is if God reshaped the natural eating and hunting habits of spiders and sharks, along with other species, after the fall? Which also plays into one's view of God's natural enviromental cycles for such. Of course the OECs would assume that sharks still eat what they eat now and same is true for spiders. It is amussing to think of a black widow spider spinning a web to catch falling fruit.
Click to expand...

What I find amusing is arrogant specks of dust thinking that He that sits upon the throne of heaven is incapable of reshaping the natural eating and hunting habits of any creature, or even change the very creature itself (as scripture clearly claims in the case of the serpent) to reflect the horrendously pervasive effects of the fall.


----------



## py3ak

Scripture says that God subjected the creation to vanity; why would you _not_ anticipate sweeping changes between whatever went on in the Garden of Eden and what currently happens in almost every ecosystem?

The other thing that leaves me baffled is why people keep on saying that Genesis 1 & 2 appear to be contradictory; the very change in names that has been so stupidly used in support of a JEDP hypothesis tells you that these are accounts from two different perspectives, with two different foci. Somebody might want to let God know He's not allowed to relate the same events more than once, or that if He does He has to repeat the narrative verbatim; and while that somebody is at it, he might want to let literary critics know that no one _ever_ summarizes or compresses or expands or elaborates on an event they've already talked about.


----------



## lynnie

How do we know what Eden was like? We don't. Perhaps all land creatures ate nectar or sap from plants, and there was no cellular death at all. Perhaps the fish in the sea metabolized minerals and oxygen and dissolved carbon in the sea water to make energy. We don't know. 

"We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." It was all cursed. All of it. I believe there was no radioactive decay before the fall, and until then the nuclear force was different ( stronger). Some scientists think that the speed of light has been slowing down. The earth's magnetic field appears to have gradually weakened. Every single part of creation fell and was cursed.


----------



## littlepeople

Isaiah 65: 25 “The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain,” says the LORD."

We can believe that it will be; why is it so hard to believe that it was?


----------



## ChariotsofFire

Common sense tells me that cutting a live bunny to pieces is different than cutting up some carrots.


----------



## Peairtach

Grimmson said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do OECs deal with Genesis 1:30?
> 
> _And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. (ESV)_
> 
> This seems to indicate vegetarianism for animals, and yet popular science - and presumably OEC - would say that certain animals were meat eaters long before Man appeared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What am curious about with YECs is if God reshaped the natural eating and hunting habits of spiders and sharks, along with other species, after the fall? Which also plays into one's view of God's natural enviromental cycles for such. Of course the OECs would assume that sharks still eat what they eat now and same is true for spiders. It is amussing to think of a black widow spider spinning a web to catch falling fruit.
Click to expand...


But this doesn't tell me how OECs deal with this text. It just tells me that _if_ animals didn't eat each other before the Fall, there would have to be major changes.


----------



## bouletheou

SRoper,

What is your view of the "futility" to which creation is subjected if it is not "nature red of tooth and claw?"

Kindest Regards,


----------



## SRoper

Pastor Carpenter, my wife and I were just going through this passage last night in our reading of Romans. It's interesting that even though she grew up in rather conservative churches (Missionary Alliance and PCA) and is well versed in scripture, she had never heard the idea that animals did not die before the Fall until I mentioned it to her. She thought you would have to read that idea into the text and I agree. I understand the futility to be related to the Earth only yielding it's fruit with much labor on the part of man. It's the thorns and thistles that frustrate man's dominion. I also think Kline's view that this is the Earth acting as the graveyard of mankind and looking forward to the general resurrection deserves some consideration.

But this is where the theistic evolution ideas that prompted this thread founder. If man is "falling upwards," then Creation and the Fall are basically co-mingled. It seems that rather than following the biblical Creation-Fall story, theistic evolution follows a story of progressive blessings. As man developed his tool making ability and facility with language he is able to eke out a living with greater and greater ease. There is no room for the fruitfulness of a Garden in the theistic evolutionary story, no room for the sweat of the brow in the Fall. In this view Genesis 2 can't even be myth, much less history.


----------



## kvanlaan

I have finally read through to this point and must say that I am rather befuddled. For those arguing against a YE due to the preponderance of scientific evidence to the contrary, it would seem there is being created a VERY different Bible from what Christians have been reading for the last 1700 years. So let's carry that idea on through: We cannot believe in YEC because of the incredible amount of scientific data opposing it. It would be folly to do so.

Thus:
We cannot believe that rubbing mud in a man's eyes could ever cure him of blindness. Science debunks it.
We cannot believe that water can be changed instantaneously into wine. Science declares it impossible.
We cannot believe that demons were ever cast out, since science has determined that mental illness, not demon possession, was the reason for these incidents.
We cannot believe that an Ark would ever fit two of every animal in the world, because science has deemed both the boat necessary and the idea that a flood could cover the whole earth to be impossible.

I could go on for literally pages and pages, but rejecting a 6 day creation on the basis of modern scientific data disembowels the Bible, fully and completely. If creation must fall by necessity of illogical impossibilities, why not these other above, in addition to the myriad examples that one could pull from Scripture that are in defiance of science as we know it today?


----------



## LawrenceU

kvanlaan said:


> I have finally read through to this point and must say that I am rather befuddled. For those arguing against a YE due to the preponderance of scientific evidence to the contrary, it would seem there is being created VERY different Bible from what Christians have been reading for the last 1700 years. So let's carry that idea on through: We cannot believe in YEC because of the incredible amount of scientific data opposing it. It would be folly to do so.
> 
> Thus:
> We cannot believe that rubbing mud in a man's eyes could ever cure him of blindness. Science debunks it.
> We cannot believe that water can be changed instantaneously into wine. Science declares it impossible.
> We cannot believe that demons were ever cast out, since science has determined that mental illness, not demon possession, was the reason for these incidents.
> We cannot believe that an Ark would ever fit two of every animal in the world, because science has deemed both the boat necessary and the idea that a flood could cover the whole earth to be impossible.
> 
> I could go on for literally pages and pages, but rejecting a 6 day creation on the basis of modern scientific data disembowels the Bible, fully and completely. If creation must fall by necessity of illogical impossibilities, why not these other above, in addition to the myriad examples that one could pull from Scripture that are in defiance of science as we know it today?


 
Amen!
Yup!
Go on!


----------



## kvanlaan

> And let's make sure we put quotation marks around science and scientific.



Amen. Let's remember that tenets of orthodox Christianity have changed little over the past 2000 years while 'science' has ranged everywhere from the bizarre to the mildly offensive in the same time frame.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

I know I'm jumping in late here, but a few quick points:

1. There is nothing in Scriptures that invalidate the view that there was animal death prior to the Fall. Romans 5 clearly refers to human death, but NOT animal death. Were there no predators before the Fall? I doubt it, seeing as God is praised for His creation of eagles, lions, and all sorts of carnivores throughout the OT. And where do we get the idea that (natural) animal death is so bad anyway? I don't believe humans evolved from primates, but I do believe it is fairly obvious animals died before the Fall.

2. From my time at Redeemer and having heard Tim Keller address this issue in person, I would say be believes God guided some form of evolution, and still does. He leaves the details to the scientists, but I agree with Ken that he's probably not a "true" Theistic Evoluitionist, and adheres to some sort of Framework view. In my mind I don't see how all Christians aren't broadly theistic evolutionists, but that's a different topic entirely. 

3. Embracing some form of evolution and/or old earth creationism is not necessarily done to appease modern secular scientists. I reject much of evolution because it is flawed science, but there are valid evolutionary principles (including the dreaded macro-evolution) that do not contradict Genesis 1-2. 

4. I don't know how the Metro NY Presbytery will respond to Ron Choong's writings, but the title of this thread is highly misleading. A TE posted this on his blog, but that does not mean it is being advocated by the presbytery, any particular church, or preached from the pulpit. Having read the blog of TE Carpenter (the person who started the thread), his divisive, antogonistic, inflammatory approach is not surprising...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Joshua said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is nothing in Scriptures that invalidate the view that there was animal death prior to the Fall. Romans 5 clearly refers to human death, but NOT animal death.
> 
> 
> 
> Such a distinction/qualification is not made. It says _death_, period. _Death_ throughout Scripture is painted as an enemy.
Click to expand...


Josh, Romans 5:12-14 says this:



> 12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one *man*, and death through sin, and so *death spread to all men* because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet *death reigned from Adam to Moses*, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.



The death in Romans 5 is explicitly, clearly human death. It refers only to man's death as a result of the Fall. There is no mention of death in Romans 5 without first qualifying it as human death.



Joshua said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> Were there no predators before the Fall? I doubt it, seeing as God is praised for His creation of eagles, lions, and all sorts of carnivores throughout the OT.
> 
> 
> 
> But you assumption, Mason, is that they were "carnivorous" pre-fall. Your assumption is that the creation in Eden is similar to our post-fall environment.
> 
> 
> 
> And where do we get the idea that (natural) animal death is so bad anyway? I don't believe humans evolved from primates, but I do believe it is fairly obvious animals died before the Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _How_ is that "obvious"? _Obvious_ would be if we had _record_ of an animal dying pre-fall. But we do _*not*_. Ergo, _obvious_ can only be applied to that which isn't mentioned in relation to all other Scriptures that pertain to death: Primarily, Romans 5 which says clearly _death_ was a result of sin. It doesn't say _human death_ was a result of sin. It says _death_.
Click to expand...


It is obvious because there is nothing to suggest a lion wasn't a lion before the fall, or a spider didn't spin a web, or a wolf didn't have incisors, or a vultures feasted on dead plants instead of dead animals. No where does the Bible indicate animal nature was fundamentally changed post-Fall. Animals die today, why shouldn't be believe they died before the Fall, given there is no Scriptural indication that they did?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is nothing in Scriptures that invalidate the view that there was animal death prior to the Fall. Romans 5 clearly refers to human death, but NOT animal death.
> 
> 
> 
> Such a distinction/qualification is not made. It says _death_, period. _Death_ throughout Scripture is painted as an enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Josh, Romans 5:12-14 says this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one *man*, and death through sin, and so *death spread to all men* because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet *death reigned from Adam to Moses*, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The death in Romans 5 is explicitly, clearly human death. It refers only to man's death as a result of the Fall. There is no mention of death in Romans 5 without first qualifying it as human death.
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Were there no predators before the Fall? I doubt it, seeing as God is praised for His creation of eagles, lions, and all sorts of carnivores throughout the OT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you assumption, Mason, is that they were "carnivorous" pre-fall. Your assumption is that the creation in Eden is similar to our post-fall environment.
> 
> 
> 
> And where do we get the idea that (natural) animal death is so bad anyway? I don't believe humans evolved from primates, but I do believe it is fairly obvious animals died before the Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _How_ is that "obvious"? _Obvious_ would be if we had _record_ of an animal dying pre-fall. But we do _*not*_. Ergo, _obvious_ can only be applied to that which isn't mentioned in relation to all other Scriptures that pertain to death: Primarily, Romans 5 which says clearly _death_ was a result of sin. It doesn't say _human death_ was a result of sin. It says _death_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is obvious because there is nothing to suggest a lion wasn't a lion before the fall, or a spider didn't spin a web, or a wolf didn't have incisors, or a vultures feasted on dead plants instead of dead animals. No where does the Bible indicate animal nature was fundamentally changed post-Fall. Animals die today, why shouldn't be believe they died before the Fall, given there is no Scriptural indication that they did?
Click to expand...

 
Now we are getting into hermeneutics and theology. It is sound theology to say that there there was not death of animals before the fall. It is not sound theology to say that there was death before the fall. This may not be explicity set forth from Scripture, but it may, by good and necessary consequence, be deduced therefrom.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Joshua said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is nothing in Scriptures that invalidate the view that there was animal death prior to the Fall. Romans 5 clearly refers to human death, but NOT animal death.
> 
> 
> 
> Such a distinction/qualification is not made. It says _death_, period. _Death_ throughout Scripture is painted as an enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Josh, Romans 5:12-14 says this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one *man*, and death through sin, and so *death spread to all men* because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet *death reigned from Adam to Moses*, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The death in Romans 5 is explicitly, clearly human death. It refers only to man's death as a result of the Fall. There is no mention of death in Romans 5 without first qualifying it as human death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure there is, right where it says _and death through sin_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Were there no predators before the Fall? I doubt it, seeing as God is praised for His creation of eagles, lions, and all sorts of carnivores throughout the OT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you assumption, Mason, is that they were "carnivorous" pre-fall. Your assumption is that the creation in Eden is similar to our post-fall environment.
> 
> 
> 
> And where do we get the idea that (natural) animal death is so bad anyway? I don't believe humans evolved from primates, but I do believe it is fairly obvious animals died before the Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _How_ is that "obvious"? _Obvious_ would be if we had _record_ of an animal dying pre-fall. But we do _*not*_. Ergo, _obvious_ can only be applied to that which isn't mentioned in relation to all other Scriptures that pertain to death: Primarily, Romans 5 which says clearly _death_ was a result of sin. It doesn't say _human death_ was a result of sin. It says _death_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is obvious because there is nothing to suggest a lion wasn't a lion before the fall, or a spider didn't spin a web, or a wolf didn't have incisors, or a vultures feasted on dead plants instead of dead animals. No where does the Bible indicate animal nature was fundamentally changed post-Fall. Animals die today, why shouldn't be believe they died before the Fall, given there is no Scriptural indication that they did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't believe there was death before the fall, since death is the result of sin, and the only mention of death ever resulting from anything was from _sin, _and since Adam's sin was the first sin, then we know that death didn't come around until after Adam sinned.
Click to expand...

 
Josh, do you really believe that? Seriously? The entire passage talks about the death of man through sin. It's very clear.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Joshua said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Josh, do you really believe that? Seriously? The entire passage talks about the death of man through sin. It's very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, because there is certainly no other reason from Scripture (or even _Science_ for that matter, not that it's relevant) for me to believe that there was death before the fall, since the only mention thereof is _post-_fall and since Romans 5 says _death_ is the result of sin.
Click to expand...

 
Well, I don't agree, but if you want to believe sharks ate seaweed and fleas were immortal, there's not much I can do to change your mind...


----------



## bouletheou

Mason,

You forgot "arrogant." I guess you could try and charge me with violations of the Ninth Commandment. Oh wait, nevermind.

TE White has updates on the Ron Choong story. 

Perhaps that will answer some of Mason's objections. 

Stay tuned to this channel for further developments.


----------



## Mushroom

> Having read the blog of TE Carpenter (the person who started the thread), his divisive, antogonistic, inflammatory approach is not surprising...


*
*


> 1Ti 5:19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.


Maybe that's another scripture we can call 'poetic', and therefore ignore.


----------



## Dearly Bought

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Well, I don't agree, but if you want to believe sharks ate seaweed and fleas were immortal, there's not much I can do to change your mind...


It's about as foolish as five loaves of bread and two fish feeding five thousand people, a man living inside a whale for three days, a talking donkey, the sun standing still, a worldwide flood, a woman turned into a pillar of salt, and the God of the universe wrapped in baby clothes in the arms of a virgin who birthed Him.



*Not that I'm claiming that there were immortal fleas pre-Fall, mind you. As Rev. Greco has already pointed out, the Bible speaks differently of the death of _nephesh_ creatures as compared to other forms of "life." However, if the Scriptures pointed in that direction, I would have no problem in believing in immortal fleas.


----------



## ChristianTrader

I thought nature being subjected to futility/vanity of Romans 8 was clearly linked to man's sin. If it was not man's sin, then what was it that caused the problem. If it was man's sin, then how is it to be understood outside of death being at least part of the futility?


----------



## Mushroom

> Well, I don't agree, but if you want to believe sharks ate seaweed and fleas were immortal, there's not much I can do to change your mind...


Aah, the arrogance of sophistry... But what about these?:


> Isa 11:7 The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.


*
*


> Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.


Unless these are more 'poetic' scriptures, it is apparent that those sorts of changes will happen to lions and bears in the future. Is there some necessity that God was incapable of making changes of that kind in the past? Because 'science' hasn't found archeological evidence? No evidence of lions that grazed among the *dead* remains found in the earth? I wonder why not?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Josh, do you really believe that? Seriously? The entire passage talks about the death of man through sin. It's very clear.


 
What is _clear_ in this case is methodology that leads you to an eisegetical conclusion that is not dictated by the text. Death came through sin and it spread to all men.

By this you _infer_ that this is only to men because you refuse to conceive otherwise. There is nothing in the text that says that death spread "...to men only." That's what you infer and want it to say but it does not.

Where, in the Scriptures, may you find a place where it speaks about the origin of death? There is a clear verse that says death came through sin (it doesn't qualify as you do). Your only retort is to ridicule the idea that Sharks and other carnivores ate non-animal life. Is that it? Is that your "exegesis" for animal death before the Fall. Do you have a verse that speaks to human death only or is your surety grounded in the faith that animals must have died because you cannot conceive otherwise?

Furthermore, Romans 8 sheds more light on what happened when God subjected the _Creation_ to the Curse:


> 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that *the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption *and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.



Corruption came with the Curse and other passages cited about how animals will lay down next to one another make it clear that death is something even the animals are freed from. Do you believe that the Creation is "groaning" simply because thorns and thistles are making man's vocation difficult?

I grow quite weary of this kind of interaction that seeks to wiggle in concepts foreign to the Scriptures and then a proponent that arrogantly says certain things are clear that exegetes for centuries have agreed manifestly links death to sin.

What training in exegesis and hermeneutics do you have Mason?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

bouletheou said:


> Mason,
> 
> You forgot "arrogant." I guess you could try and charge me with violations of the Ninth Commandment. Oh wait, nevermind.
> 
> TE White has updates on the Ron Choong story.
> 
> Perhaps that will answer some of Mason's objections.
> 
> Stay tuned to this channel for further developments.


 


Brad said:


> Having read the blog of TE Carpenter (the person who started the thread), his divisive, antogonistic, inflammatory approach is not surprising...
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 1Ti 5:19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe that's another scripture we can call 'poetic', and therefore ignore.
Click to expand...


TE Carpenter posted on a blog. I think there are plenty of "witnesses," don't you?



Dearly Bought said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't agree, but if you want to believe sharks ate seaweed and fleas were immortal, there's not much I can do to change your mind...
> 
> 
> 
> It's about as foolish as five loaves of bread and two fish feeding five thousand people, a man living inside a whale for three days, a talking donkey, the sun standing still, a worldwide flood, a woman turned into a pillar of salt, and the God of the universe wrapped in baby clothes in the arms of a virgin who birthed Him.
> 
> 
> 
> *Not that I'm claiming that there were immortal fleas pre-Fall, mind you. As Rev. Greco has already pointed out, the Bible speaks differently of the death of _nephesh_ creatures as compared to other forms of "life." However, if the Scriptures pointed in that direction, I would have no problem in believing in immortal fleas.
Click to expand...


The problem with this logic is that the miracles you mention are Scripturally recorded historic events. Nowhere does the Bible say animals did not die before the Fall (see below). 



ChristianTrader said:


> I thought nature being subjected to futility/vanity of Romans 8 was clearly linked to man's sin. If it was not man's sin, then what was it that caused the problem. If it was man's sin, then how is it to be understood outside of death being at least part of the futility?



This is flawed thinking because you're linking "futility" with death. Nature will be perfect one day, but why does perfection preclude animal death? You're reading your own views of death into the text.



Brad said:


> Well, I don't agree, but if you want to believe sharks ate seaweed and fleas were immortal, there's not much I can do to change your mind...
> 
> 
> 
> Aah, the arrogance of sophistry... But what about these?:
> 
> 
> 
> Isa 11:7 The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless these are more 'poetic' scriptures, it is apparent that those sorts of changes will happen to lions and bears in the future. Is there some necessity that God was incapable of making changes of that kind in the past? Because 'science' hasn't found archeological evidence? No evidence of lions that grazed among the *dead* remains found in the earth? I wonder why not?
Click to expand...

 
Take a look at Calvin on these verses. He notes they are metaphors for God's elect being transformed by the Holy Spirit: we were previously harmful beasts that are made gentle by Him.



Semper Fidelis said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Josh, do you really believe that? Seriously? The entire passage talks about the death of man through sin. It's very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is _clear_ in this case is methodology that leads you to an eisegetical conclusion that is not dictated by the text. Death came through sin and it spread to all men.
> 
> By this you _infer_ that this is only to men because you refuse to conceive otherwise. There is nothing in the text that says that death spread "...to men only." That's what you infer and want it to say but it does not.
> 
> Where, in the Scriptures, may you find a place where it speaks about the origin of death? There is a clear verse that says death came through sin (it doesn't qualify as you do). Your only retort is to ridicule the idea that Sharks and other carnivores ate non-animal life. Is that it? Is that your "exegesis" for animal death before the Fall. Do you have a verse that speaks to human death only or is your surety grounded in the faith that animals must have died because you cannot conceive otherwise?
> 
> Furthermore, Romans 8 sheds more light on what happened when God subjected the _Creation_ to the Curse:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that *the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption *and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corruption came with the Curse and other passages cited about how animals will lay down next to one another make it clear that death is something even the animals are freed from. Do you believe that the Creation is "groaning" simply because thorns and thistles are making man's vocation difficult?
> 
> I grow quite weary of this kind of interaction that seeks to wiggle in concepts foreign to the Scriptures and then a proponent that arrogantly says certain things are clear that exegetes for centuries have agreed manifestly links death to sin.
> 
> What training in exegesis and hermeneutics do you have Mason?
Click to expand...


Rich,

It doesn't take "training" to see what is clear in Scripture. Do you need a medical degree to know the heart pumps blood? 

I've perused my library, and couldn't find a single Reformed theologian - starting with John Calvin - who mentions anything other than human death in Romans 5 and 8. In fact, in an aside on Romans 8:21 he calls commentators who believe animals will be immortal "shrewd but unbalanced" and admonishes the reader not to dwell on such things. He says we should realize that nature will be free from vanity and futility, but that is it. Is death part of futility and vanity? I don't think so, necessarily. 

If my reading of Romans 5 is flawed eisogesis, then yours is flawed for the same reason: you see animal death came from sin because you want to see it. The context is clearly about human death as a result of sin, correct? We can only infer animal death if it is explicitly stated, right? So to me it is clear the passage refers only to human death as being post-fall, not animal death. The logical, scientific conclusion is that animals died pre-fall. And I don't see anything in Scripture that precludes such a view...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

You're missing the point. I have not exegeted that animal death is _specifically_ articulated in Romans 5. You have _eisegeted_ that _only_ human death is taught in Romans 5. The context of the verse is Covenant identity with Adam and the consequences of his sin, which is death and that death spreading to all men. As viceregent for Creation, one can deduce some other things by GNC but, for now, it is sufficient to note that there is nothing that restricts the _consequences_ of Adam's sin to simply man when it speaks of death. It is clear, elsewhere (including Gen 3), that the effects are more far-reaching.

What is clear from Romans 5 is that death came from sin. It does not say that "...human death came from sin..." but that death came from sin and _then_ it says that "...all men died." In other words, Sin->Death->All men died.

Romans 8 then notes that the Creation was subjected to futility to include _corruption_.

What you _cannot_ say is clear, exegetically, that Romans 5 _only_ speaks of the death of man _only_. There is nothing by reading _from the text_ that says that. You may hold that it is a _possibility_ but it is not possible to say that it clearly teaches this as it does not. That's how exegesis works.

Now, in order to build a hermeneutic that supports animal death preceded the Fall, you need to find other Scriptural data to support the death of animals pre-Fall. Do you have any? All I see is incredulity at the idea that animals that are now carnivorous were not once omnivores. That is not exegesis but skepticism unsupported by any textual data. Why _must_ I assume that when Paul says that "death came through sin" that he's not speaking of all death. What in the Greek makes the object in view men only?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Semper Fidelis said:


> You're missing the point. I have not exegeted that animal death is _specifically_ articulated in Romans 5. You have _eisegeted_ that _only_ human death is taught in Romans 5. The context of the verse is Covenant identity with Adam and the consequences of his sin, which is death and that death spreading to all men. As viceregent for Creation, one can deduce some other things by GNC but, for now, it is sufficient to note that there is nothing that restricts the _consequences_ of Adam's sin to simply man when it speaks of death. It is clear, elsewhere (including Gen 3), that the effects are more far-reaching.
> 
> What is clear from Romans 5 is that death came from sin. It does not say that "...human death came from sin..." but that death came from sin and _then_ it says that "...all men died." In other words, Sin->Death->All men died.
> 
> Romans 8 then notes that the Creation was subjected to futility to include _corruption_.
> 
> What you _cannot_ say is clear, exegetically, that Romans 5 _only_ speaks of the death of man _only_. There is nothing by reading _from the text_ that says that. You may hold that it is a _possibility_ but it is not possible to say that it clearly teaches this as it does not. That's how exegesis works.
> 
> Now, in order to build a hermeneutic that supports animal death preceded the Fall, you need to find other Scriptural data to support the death of animals pre-Fall. Do you have any? All I see is incredulity at the idea that animals that are now carnivorous were not once omnivores. That is not exegesis but skepticism unsupported by any textual data. Why _must_ I assume that when Paul says that "death came through sin" that he's not speaking of all death. What in the Greek makes the object in view men only?



Rich,

The entire flow of Romans 5 deals with man's relationship to God. The first part of the chapter discusses our reconciliation to Him through Christ. Then in 12-14 Paul discusses why all men die because of Adam's sin. I disagree with your general sequence above, and would say that Paul is being much more specific: Adam's sin -> Adam's death -> Adam's progeny's deaths all are the result of sin. I don't think you would disagree that Paul is very specifically dealing with humans in this sequence. As such, I see nothing that lead's me to believe Paul is talking about anything more than human death in this particular passage. 

My point in this discussion is that I can find nothing about pre-Fall animal death that contradicts God's Word. In Job God says he made the eagles to see prey from afar and the young eagles "suck up blood, and where the slain are, he is." He also says he provides prey for the lions. Why are we to assume this is only a post-fall phenomenon? We are assuming that animal death is "futile" or "corrupt," but I don't think that's necessarily so. Isn't there great beauty in an eagle hunting its prey, or a whale tiger stalking a boar? I think that's a beautiful, magnificent part of God's creation - why are we to assume that is part of the "corruption?"


----------



## littlepeople

1. 
If animal death was commonplace pre-fall, then it was morally neutral. Actually it would be considered "very good."
and
If animal death is morally neutral, Leviticus 17: 3-4 is calling for punishment of a "very good" act.

"Any man from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, 4and has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people"

Summary: If a man eats "un-sacrificed meat" he is to be cast out. In the passage above, what is the legal accusation brought against such a man? (hint: it's underlined)


2.
Isaiah 65:25 "The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD."

It would appear that Isaiah does not have a proper understanding of ecosystems and the circle-of-life. I mean, how else could he be portraying carnivorous activity as "evil"


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. I have not exegeted that animal death is _specifically_ articulated in Romans 5. You have _eisegeted_ that _only_ human death is taught in Romans 5. The context of the verse is Covenant identity with Adam and the consequences of his sin, which is death and that death spreading to all men. As viceregent for Creation, one can deduce some other things by GNC but, for now, it is sufficient to note that there is nothing that restricts the _consequences_ of Adam's sin to simply man when it speaks of death. It is clear, elsewhere (including Gen 3), that the effects are more far-reaching.
> 
> What is clear from Romans 5 is that death came from sin. It does not say that "...human death came from sin..." but that death came from sin and _then_ it says that "...all men died." In other words, Sin->Death->All men died.
> 
> Romans 8 then notes that the Creation was subjected to futility to include _corruption_.
> 
> What you _cannot_ say is clear, exegetically, that Romans 5 _only_ speaks of the death of man _only_. There is nothing by reading _from the text_ that says that. You may hold that it is a _possibility_ but it is not possible to say that it clearly teaches this as it does not. That's how exegesis works.
> 
> Now, in order to build a hermeneutic that supports animal death preceded the Fall, you need to find other Scriptural data to support the death of animals pre-Fall. Do you have any? All I see is incredulity at the idea that animals that are now carnivorous were not once omnivores. That is not exegesis but skepticism unsupported by any textual data. Why _must_ I assume that when Paul says that "death came through sin" that he's not speaking of all death. What in the Greek makes the object in view men only?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> The entire flow of Romans 5 deals with man's relationship to God. The first part of the chapter discusses our reconciliation to Him through Christ. Then in 12-14 Paul discusses why all men die because of Adam's sin. I disagree with your general sequence above, and would say that Paul is being much more specific: Adam's sin -> Adam's death -> Adam's progeny's deaths all are the result of sin. I don't think you would disagree that Paul is very specifically dealing with humans in this sequence. As such, I see nothing that lead's me to believe Paul is talking about anything more than human death in this particular passage.
> 
> My point in this discussion is that I can find nothing about pre-Fall animal death that contradicts God's Word. In Job God says he made the eagles to see prey from afar and the young eagles "suck up blood, and where the slain are, he is." He also says he provides prey for the lions. Why are we to assume this is only a post-fall phenomenon? We are assuming that animal death is "futile" or "corrupt," but I don't think that's necessarily so. Isn't there great beauty in an eagle hunting its prey, or a whale tiger stalking a boar? I think that's a beautiful, magnificent part of God's creation - why are we to assume that is part of the "corruption?"
Click to expand...

 
Stop avoiding what you stated about Romans 5 and provide _exegesis_ to support your claim. You are painting broad outlines and not providing any exegesis. If you cannot do so then retract your statement about how _clear_ the passage is. I will not tolerate any more amateurish attempts at broad-brushing the exegetical issues. You have casually dismissed all death being a result of the Curse and provided no exegesis to support your claim that this is _clear_ from the passage you have cited.

I will tolerate no further obfuscation of what you've been asked to do.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just to be honest Mason, it looks like others have supported there views with scripture and you have not. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Mason*


> In my mind I don't see how all Christians aren't broadly theistic evolutionists, but that's a different topic entirely.



Well, if you mean that different varieties have arisen in God's providence from the original creatures God made because He put in them the genetic ability to vary. We wouldn't call that theistic evolution in case we were confused with people that have sold out to godless science and people believed that we believed that all creatures, including Man, were related and came from a common ancestor.

I'm still waiting to read how OECs deal with Genesis 1:30:-
_And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. (ESV) _


----------



## littlepeople

Richard Tallach said:


> I'm still waiting to read how OECs deal with Genesis 1:30:-
> _And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. (ESV) _


 
Me too.

especially in light of Genesis 9: 3
"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."


----------



## Afterthought

Richard Tallach said:


> I'm still waiting to read how OECs deal with Genesis 1:30:-
> And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. (ESV)


Being a nominal day-age OEC myself, I'll take a stab at it based on what I remember from way back when I took a look at this issue. Any OEC with better experience, feel free to add on or critique what I say.

Various views:

(1) This verse says nothing about whether animals were eaten or not or whether all animals were vegetarians or not. It merely distinguishes which kind of food they eat. The animals eat the green plants, while humans ("29And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.") eat the plants yielding seed and the trees with seed in their fruit. Basically, it means the humans are not to eat grass.
(2) This verse was said in the garden of Eden and merely distinguished the kinds of plants the animals and humans could eat within the garden. Perhaps supported by the similar statement God makes in Genesis 2 in which He tells Adam He gives him all the trees in the garden for food except for one.
(3) Similar to the above, except Eden was a special place where there really was true vegetarianism though the world surrounding it had carnivorous activity (which is how Adam would know what death was when God warned Him about it).

Except for (3), the rest of these are also usually backed up by noting that not even humans can survive on veggies for too long without taking protein pills (carnivorous animals can't survive long on plants either), nor would there be any use for the sharp teeth of carnivorous animals (like a lion) if they ate plants only and so the sharp teeth of carnivorous animals would not be "very good."



littlepeople said:


> especially in light of Genesis 9: 3
> "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."



In line with the above reasoning and possibly (?) also some scientific evidence that humans (this could be countered by saying only rebellious and not God-worshipers did this) would have eaten meat within and by that time period of Noah's Flood (after all, this would be the "bronze" or "iron" age if you look at Genesis 4), humans would have had to eat some sort of meat after the Fall or they would die. That Abel kept flocks seems to suggest this is true. That Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals might also suggest this is true since the difference between them was which ones the Isralites could eat (correct me if I'm wrong here because I'm not sure).

Since God is renewing His original covenant that He made with Adam (excuse any lack of proper Covenant Theology language, but I hope you know what I mean), it is possible that (a) humans could eat animals before and this is part of the renewal of the covenant or (b) God allowed humans to eat animals after the fall (not recorded for us in the bible but neither are how God told Cain and Abel how to worship Him) and is renewing that statement here like He is renewing His "be fruitful and multiply" command.

Another common argument strategy is that the point of these arguments isn't so much to prove any of these statements to be absolutely true, but more to show that we do not know what happened for sure from the bible during these times, and thus science is a fine tool to fill in the details to allow us to jump to those seemingly doubtful conclusions (e.g., God renewing a command to Noah to eat meat).


I probably gave weaker arguments defending this than another might have given, but I thought I'd take a stab at it anyway though most of it is just parroting arguments from memory translated into Reformed-speak.

Edit: Also, is it just me, or did this thread get way off topic? xD


----------



## Mushroom

> not even humans can survive on veggies for too long without taking protein pills


Unless their physiology was different.


> nor would there be any use for the sharp teeth of carnivorous animals (like a lion) if they ate plants only and so the sharp teeth of carnivorous animals would not be "very good."


There would have been no use for them, and there is no evidence that they had them prior to the fall. A change in the physiology of every living creature in the twinkling of an eye is not beyond the ability of the Ancient of Days, my friend. This is adjusting our understanding of scripture to the so-called science of men.


----------



## littlepeople

seems like a very tiring exercise in gymnastics to me.

a few comments though on the various views:

1. The clearest teaching of Genesis 1:30 is humans are not to eat grass?
2. Which animals are expressed in the verse as being permissible for Adam to eat?
3. What was Adam doing outside the garden? Did he name these carnivores that existed outside the garden? 

Gorillas have sharp teeth and eat veggies, is that also not good?

Concerning the covenant renewal with Noah.
Was the Rainbow also present before, but simply renewed at this time?

-perhaps changing the names and events will help us apply the same principles. - If Billy's father gives him the keys to the family station wagon at age 16, and later at age 18 hands him the keys to the Ferrari. He might say: "I now give you these keys to the Ferrari, like I gave you the keys to the station wagon. (Gen 1:30 vs Gen 9:3)" Would the same confusion ensue, or would we all agree that Billy was not to drive the Ferrari at age 16?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Point of information: 

As a teaching elder, it doesn't matter where you are, or where you say it, you are still accountable to the presbytery for what you teach and advocate. If you teach contrary to the Scriptures or the confessions, then you must be held accountable. It doesn't matter if it was a science blog or any other public venue (or private for that matter). You vowed to submit yourself to the standards of the Church. And if the presbytery is informed about erroneous teaching, and does nothing or grants that exception to the Standards, then they become culpable as well in the advancement of error. 

There seems to be some misunderstanding in this thread that because he said thee statements on a blog, he's ok or that he's not under the jurisdiction of the presbytery. That is incorrect.


----------



## Notthemama1984

> the rest of these are also usually backed up by noting that not even humans can survive on veggies for too long without taking protein pills (carnivorous animals can't survive long on plants either



I would disagree with this statement. I personally know vegetarians who never take any protein supplement and are surviving just fine. Also they have turned their animals into vegetarians and they are fine. It should also be noted that a few years ago the oldest living dog was 27 years old and had been a vegetarian for most of his life. 

Vegetable-Eating Dog Lives to Ripe Old Age of 29; Also: Who is the Oldest Dog in the World; And: How to Make Your Dog Live 1.8 Years Longer


----------



## nasa30

> nor would there be any use for the sharp teeth of carnivorous animals (like a lion) if they ate plants only and so the sharp teeth of carnivorous animals would not be "very good."


 Just my  but take a look at the skull of a fruit bat.


----------



## Zenas

Chaplainintraining said:


> the rest of these are also usually backed up by noting that not even humans can survive on veggies for too long without taking protein pills (carnivorous animals can't survive long on plants either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree with this statement. I personally know vegetarians who never take any protein supplement and are surviving just fine. Also they have turned their animals into vegetarians and they are fine. It should also be noted that a few years ago the oldest living dog was 27 years old and had been a vegetarian for most of his life.
> 
> Vegetable-Eating Dog Lives to Ripe Old Age of 29; Also: Who is the Oldest Dog in the World; And: How to Make Your Dog Live 1.8 Years Longer
Click to expand...

 
As a vegetarian, you can still eat animal products like milk, cheese, and eggs, all of which contain protein. As a vegan, you refrain from even those, but you can still gain protein from eating various types of beans, all of which are high in protein and good for you. You can also drink soy milk, a favorite of my wife.


----------



## Peairtach

Afterthought said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting to read how OECs deal with Genesis 1:30:-
> And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. (ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> Being a nominal day-age OEC myself, I'll take a stab at it based on what I remember from way back when I took a look at this issue. Any OEC with better experience, feel free to add on or critique what I say.
> 
> Various views:
> 
> (1) This verse says nothing about whether animals were eaten or not or whether all animals were vegetarians or not. It merely distinguishes which kind of food they eat. The animals eat the green plants, while humans ("29And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.") eat the plants yielding seed and the trees with seed in their fruit. Basically, it means the humans are not to eat grass.
Click to expand...


But why doesn't it say that animals were also given meat to eat?



> (2) This verse was said in the garden of Eden and merely distinguished the kinds of plants the animals and humans could eat within the garden. Perhaps supported by the similar statement God makes in Genesis 2 in which He tells Adam He gives him all the trees in the garden for food except for one.



Is there evidence that this was limited to the Garden? And if it was "good" for the Garden was it not good enough for the World?



> (3) Similar to the above, except Eden was a special place where there really was true vegetarianism though the world surrounding it had carnivorous activity (which is how Adam would know what death was when God warned Him about it).



If he was in the Garden which was part of the land of Eden, how did he know about death from what was outside it? God could explain to him what death involved or give him innate and essential knowledge, which was needed for an adult man who'd missed out on childhood and adolescence.



> Except for (3), the rest of these are also usually backed up by noting that not even humans can survive on veggies for too long without taking protein pills (carnivorous animals can't survive long on plants either), nor would there be any use for the sharp teeth of carnivorous animals (like a lion) if they ate plants only and so the sharp teeth of carnivorous animals would not be "very good."



That's humans and animals in their _present_ condition.

All very interesting. But its interesting to note that once an OEC position has been taken then evidence in Scripture that points _prima facie_ to animal vegetarianism pre-Fall has to be explained away, because OECs have accepted that the Days represent long ages, not in order to place a long ordered process of creation in there, but a process of creation and destruction. The text doesn't limit itself to the Garden of Eden or Eden, and says nothing about animals eating meat.

Do you believe that the Curse preceeded Adam's sin, or worked backwards as well as forwards or do you believe that death, destruction, disease and carniverous activity in animals and turmoil in the geology of the Earth, etc, has no relation to Man's sin?


----------



## SRoper

Calvin on Genesis 1:29:



> Some infer, from this passages that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter. Let it suffice for us, that herbs and the fruits of trees were given them as their common food; yet it is not to be doubted that this was abundantly sufficient for their highest gratification.


----------



## sastark

SRoper said:


> Calvin on Genesis 1:29:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some infer, from this passages that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter. Let it suffice for us, that herbs and the fruits of trees were given them as their common food; yet it is not to be doubted that this was abundantly sufficient for their highest gratification.
Click to expand...

 
Scott, just out of curiousity, I looked up Matthew Henry on Gen. 1:29. Here's what he has to say:



> I. Food provided for man, v. 29. Herbs and fruits must be his meat, including corn and all the products of the earth; these were allowed him, but (it should seem) not flesh, till after the flood, ch. ix. 3. And before the earth was deluged, much more before it was cursed for man's sake, its fruits, no doubt, were more pleasing to the taste and more strengthening and nourishing to the body than marrow and fatness, and all the portion of the king's meat, are now.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

SRoper said:


> Calvin on Genesis 1:29:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some infer, from this passages that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter. Let it suffice for us, that herbs and the fruits of trees were given them as their common food; yet it is not to be doubted that this was abundantly sufficient for their highest gratification.
Click to expand...

 
Notice that Calvin is speaking of the period between the fall and the deluge. This does not mean that he thought man was allowed to kill and eat animals prior to the fall.


----------



## littlepeople

Riley, Upon perusing Calvin on Gen:9 it would seem that he views the Noahic gifting of meat as restoring what was lost in the fall. I think he's wrong, but there it is. I would need to reconcile Leviticus 17:4 (for starters) to embrace what Calvin is presenting here.

---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------

Add Isaiah 66:3 to that


----------



## Willem van Oranje

littlepeople said:


> Riley, Upon perusing Calvin on Gen:9 it would seem that he views the Noahic gifting of meat as restoring what was lost in the fall. I think he's wrong, but there it is. I would need to reconcile Leviticus 17:4 (for starters) to embrace what Calvin is presenting here.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------
> 
> Add Isaiah 66:3 to that


 
Where do you see that in Calvin's commentary on Genesis 9? I've just read what seemed to be the pertinent sections, and he is comparing the state pre- and post-deluge, not pre- and post-fall. This makes a huge difference. Furthermore he is urging the lawfulness of meats. In the background is the Romanist superstition of forbidding meats during various seasons, which Calvin vehemently opposes, noting that the Creator has made them lawful to eat. Yet this does not imply that it belonged to the pre-fall state of Adam and Eve to eat meat, only that the Creator declared them lawful before the deluge (i. e. after the fall, when animal sacrifices began to be made and animals were used for clothing.)


----------



## littlepeople

You're right. It's pre/post flood. I read this line: "God here does not bestow on men more than
he had previously given, but only restores what had been taken away, that
they might again enter on the possession of those good things from which
they had been excluded."

I blame my lazy reading skills on the I-pod's tiny screen.


----------



## Afterthought

All very good responses. I won't be able to respond to most of this since I mainly was just showing what OECs might do with those verses mentioned and since I don't have a large amount of knowledge in the areas of whatever it is that concentrates on what animals eat (nutritionist?).

As for the response about sharp teeth, I was not referring to omnivorous animals but rather purely carnivorous animals like lions which--as far as I know--could not survive on veggies with its physiology. Not to mention that its teeth are the kind which are not suited for eating veggies and so I see a difference between it, the fruit bat, and a gorilla. Now a dog on the other hand, that's an entirely different story, and I have no response I can give to it with my knowledge since I will assume that the information given is true and well-documented.

At any rate, it seems to me that what a lot of you have said (i.e., a change of physiology) would have to be true in order for such carnivores to eat veggies for that long. This raises the question of why such a change would be a consequence of sin, but I'll stop there.



littlepeople said:


> 1. The clearest teaching of Genesis 1:30 is humans are not to eat grass?


It would actually be a mere distinguishing between the kinds of plants they could eat. Meat may not be mentioned because there would need to be no distinguishing between them since meat is meat. Though how that reconciles with the command concerning meat about not strangling animals or not spilling the blood, I do not know. Though despite all that fanciness, I think you're right: this standpoint is basically saying: "humans, grass is for animals; animals, seed bearing plants are for humans."



littlepeople said:


> 2. Which animals are expressed in the verse as being permissible for Adam to eat?





Richard Tallach said:


> But why doesn't it say that animals were also given meat to eat?


It is true that Genesis 1:29-30 never says anything about eating meat. Such an argument is merely based on precisely what is said (i.e., distinguishing which veggies are for which creatures) while what is not said is filled in with scientific details based on current animal physiology.



Richard Tallach said:


> Is there evidence that this was limited to the Garden? And if it was "good" for the Garden was it not good enough for the World?


The best evidence that this was limited to the Garden is by noting the similar language of Genesis 1:29-30 and Genesis 2 where God gives Adam all the trees except for one for food. This must assume a certain version of harmonizing Genesis 1 and 2 in order for that statement to be evidence at all. As for your second question, I have nothing to say. It's a very good question, and I cannot think of a satisfactory answer. The best I can think of would be that the Garden was a kind of shelter from the World, but that runs into the problems of the Creation being called "very good."


Richard Tallach said:


> If he was in the Garden which was part of the land of Eden, how did he know about death from what was outside it?





littlepeople said:


> 3. What was Adam doing outside the garden? Did he name these carnivores that existed outside the garden?


He wouldn't have to be outside the garden to see what would be going on out there. He could just travel to the edge of the garden. Perhaps God led Him there to show Him what death was. The carnivores were probably brought into the garden for Adam to name. Evidence of this is by what the name of the lion means (or so what I've heard from OECs). Also, in this third view carnivores would not eat meat inside of the garden. This is justified by the premises of the third view that Eden was simply a very special place.

You are correct that the text doesn't necessarily limit itself to Eden. But what always must be remembered is that the idea is to show that there is enough room for interpretation that science can come in and help choose one. As for steps of creation and destruction, the day-age OEC viewpoint would see the destruction necessary for creation since certain lifeforms could not exist unless certain other lifeforms existed before them. Not to mention that some lifeforms could not coexist with the lifeforms that needed to exist at some point in order for them to exist. So some lifeforms would need to exist and then die out in order for the ecosystem to remain intact (this explains extinctions).

From a day-age OEC standpoint, Creation would be a long, ordered process of creation overall, even the details being controlled by God. The difference though is that OECs would see the destruction as part of creation and necessary for the ecosystem to survive. In that sense only would carnivorous activity, death, disease, and extinctions would be seen as "very good." (and here an OEC would usually point out that the text says "very good" instead of "perfect")



Richard Tallach said:


> God could explain to him what death involved or give him innate and essential knowledge, which was needed for an adult man who'd missed out on childhood and adolescence.


I like this a whole lot better than the answer I've seen before that Adam would think of death in a childish manner as something bad and mysterious though not knowing what it was like a parent warning a child who had never been spanked before that spanking would be a punishment.



littlepeople said:


> Concerning the covenant renewal with Noah.
> Was the Rainbow also present before, but simply renewed at this time?


From a day-age OEC standpoint, the rainbow would have existed before. This would be a time when God made something ordinary into something special by making it a covenant sign. I know almost nothing of covenant theology, so I do not know whether this would be an acceptable answer or not, but it seems to me to be the answer an OEC would give. This answers the next question to some extent:



Richard Tallach said:


> Do you believe that the Curse preceeded Adam's sin, or worked backwards as well as forwards or do you believe that death, destruction, disease and carniverous activity in animals and turmoil in the geology of the Earth, etc, has no relation to Man's sin?


I'm not sure what I believe on this. That's why I called myself a "nominal day-age OEC." I used to believe what I wrote above and part of what I'll write below. Thus, nonhuman physical death and all that would not be a result of Man's sin. Instead, _human_ death (physical and spiritual), destruction, disease, etc. would be seen as a result of Man's sin. Sometimes it is speculated by OECs that humans were capable of dying and having disease but were prevented from all of it by being in the Garden. Had they kept their covenant with God, they would have been given fruit from the tree of life to eat and so would not be capable of dying or having disease, etc. Sin also would bring destroy the harmonious relations between animals and humans since humans would now kill animals for reasons besides food (exampled by the clothing they were given).

I don't think natural disasters are handled at all, or at least I haven't seen an OEC handle them yet. Anyway, one OEC view would see killing for eating and without wasting as being good. I'm not sure if that's acceptable in light of Covenant Theology, but it does sound kind of...whatever James Cameron was getting across in Avatar. 


As for the renewing of the covenant with Noah, I don't have much to say since the rest of the discussion seems to be covering it. All I can say is that while it is true that it is never said, it would be seen as being not recorded for us just like it is not recorded for us how God told Cain and Abel what was acceptable sacrifice. That the covenant was renewing what was pre-fall, I have no response since I cannot think of a response to the analogy given without very seriously damaging the clarity of Scripture. 

That the covenant was post-fall, evidence would be the keeping of flocks, the sacrifices, and that animals are never given meat to eat in the Bible and so must have been given it at some point--the best points being post-fall and pre-flood or post-fall and post-flood. Common sense would also be appealed to in that there would be no reason for animals to still eat plants up to Noah's flood and that the fear of man in animals is seen as a result of sin (?). I also thought that it was a common point of view that eating meat was a result of the Fall and so was fine both post-Fall and pre-flood?



Anyway, I have a feeling most of what I wrote above was quite weak. Feel free to destroy it. =p


----------



## SRoper

Willem van Oranje said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin on Genesis 1:29:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some infer, from this passages that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter. Let it suffice for us, that herbs and the fruits of trees were given them as their common food; yet it is not to be doubted that this was abundantly sufficient for their highest gratification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice that Calvin is speaking of the period between the fall and the deluge. This does not mean that he thought man was allowed to kill and eat animals prior to the fall.
Click to expand...

 
Right, or at least he was talking about pre-Deluge post-Deluge and doesn't have pre-Fall and post-Fall in view. I was merely responding to the argument that meat wasn't eaten until after the Flood and that Genesis 1 taken together with Genesis 9 somehow proves this. If meat was legitimately eaten pre-Deluge without explicit authorization, it is possible it was allowed pre-Fall. Certainly the argument from Genesis 1 would no longer be enough to make the case for pre-Fall vegetarianism. Indeed, the authorization could be implicit in man's ruling and subduing the beasts, so Genesis 1 and Genesis 9 are saying the same thing.


----------

