From: Stephen J. Krogh (panterragroup@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 14:15:15 EDT
Hugh Ross has some interesting essays.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creature_mortality.shtml?main
Also from Hugh Ross: Creation and Time, pg 60:
Romans 5:12 says, "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Some
interpret this as implying that no death of any kind occurred before the sin
of Adam, and, hence, only a few days could possibly have transpired from the
creation of the first life forms to the sin of Adam. However, the absence
of physical death would pose just as much a problem for three 24-hour days
as it would for three billion years. Many species of life cannot survive
hours without food, and the mere ingestion of food requires at least the
death of plants or plant parts. Recognizing the problems of reading Romans
5:12 as a statement about physical death, others have interpreted the verse
as meaning "soulish" death. In the Genesis creation account, distinctions
are made between physical animals (invertebrates and lower vertebrates),
soulish animals (birds and mammals), and spirit beings (man). The
difficulty with this adjusted view is that soulish animals are not condemned
to "death through sin." Of all life on Earth, only man earned the title
"sinner." The key point is that Romans 5:12 is addressing neither physical
nor soulish death. When Adam sinned, he instantly "died", just as God said
he would; "In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die" - Gen. 2:17. Yet
he remained alive physically and soulishly. He died spiritually. He lost
his fellowship with God and gained a natural inclination to defy God. Gen. 3
records that after Adam died "spiritually" through sin, and then God sent an
angel to block his access to the Tree of Life.
Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
The PanTerra Group
http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com
==========================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 12:47 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: No death before the fall theology
>
>
> Hello friends:
>
> Can anyone point me to a good reference that specifically addresses the
> creationist theological assertion that no scientific theory or
> theology can
> be valid if it allows for there to be physical death before the fall?
>
> It seems that conservative christians are unwilling to allow for any ideas
> about science/creation that might result in a slippery slope
> affecting this
> doctrine. I myself cannot fathom how the physical creation could possibly
> not include death at all times in it existence since it has included life
> (whether or not you think that it evolved sensu Van Till's RFEP, as I do,
> or that it was created in six days with all the current species and
> components in place. And, theologically, I don't see how the absence of
> physical death before the fall is necessary to an otherwise fully
> conventional, reformed, and solid christian theology about the
> consequences
> for sin. Isn't the salient consequence of sin in fact spiritual
> separation
> from God and his eternal life for us in heaven?
>
> I'm not looking for scientific arguments against this no-death-before-fall
> (NDBF) view. Rather, I need help putting together strictly theological
> arguments and a articulating a overall theology that affirms solid
> christian theology without NDBF. As I've alluded to in previous posts,
> I've been searching for a church home here in Rockford, IL, and have been
> having difficulty finding a church that is serious and vibrant in its
> christian faith while able to tolerate (even appreciate!) diversity about
> issues of evolution and science, not to mention politics. I'm
> conservative
> in theology without being a biblical literalist, so I have to believe that
> there are others like me somewhere in this city of 250,000! One
> church I'm
> considering seems promising in certain ways, and I anticipate a lunch
> meeting with the pastor in which I will need to find out his tolerance
> level for my views. I know that he holds to NDBF, but perhaps he can
> respect and appreciate my view if I can provide him with a reasonable
> theological framework that does not require NDBF.
>
> I am familiar with the concept that the garden of eden was the miraculous
> (supernatural, interventional) exception to the ordinary ecology of the
> creation, but that in itself is a somewhat weak argument that looks like
> gymnastics on my part to get my science to fit the bible. I need to
> articulate a whole theological framework for my view.
>
> Sincerely,
> Douglas Hayworth
>
> P.S. I realize that some on the list are themselves of the NDBF camp. Of
> course, I can't stop you from taking me to task about this
> posting, but I'd
> much prefer to obtain the information I am asking for first; then you/we
> can discuss those points when they are presented. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 14:15:23 EDT