Theistic Evolution Openly Taught in Metro New York Presbytery

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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 :2cents: but take a look at the skull of a fruit bat.
bat-skull.jpg
 
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

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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. :think:


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
 
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.

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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top