Re: No death before the fall theology

From: Terry M. Gray (grayt@lamar.colostate.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 14:25:05 EDT

  • Next message: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: fine tuning"

    There's an article published in JETS by John Munday, Jr. at the
    Reasons to Believe site

    http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creature_mortality.shtml?main

    He will also have an article in the upcoming Eerdmans volume due out
    this summer *Implications of an Evolving Creation* edited by Keith
    Miller.

    TG

    >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.

    -- 
    _________________
    Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
    Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
    Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
    grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
    phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 14:32:12 EDT