Theistic Evolution Openly Taught in Metro New York Presbytery

[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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

[

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

[

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

Sure there is, right where it says and death through sin.

[

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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?

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]

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]

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?"

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]

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]

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."

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