Re: Death to theistic evolution?

Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Thu, 16 May 1996 11:13:25 -0400

Paul Durham wrote:
>Mike McCulloch writes...
>
>>I personally find this new (to me) "death theology" less than appealing.
>>Also, please fit the following into this theology:
>
>>"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but
>>by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself
>>will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious
>>freedom of the children of God."
>>Romans 8:20-21
>
>Further in Romans 8: 22-23
>
>"For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of
>childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we
>ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit (spiritual life), even
>we ourselves, awaiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption
>of OUR BODY" (emphasis added)
>
>TE , IMHO, is still weak on fully conforming to the Gospel, especially
>with regard to the physical death of man. And if TE cannot integrate
>the Gospel effectively, perhaps it will "evolve" into another
>explanation for the evidence and perhaps some new mechanisms that don't
>require death.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------------
>"But when this corruptable will have put on the incorruptable, and this
>mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying
>'Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O
>death, where is your sting?' The sting of death is sin..." Romans
>15:55-56
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------------
>
These are important points that I don't take lightly. I don't claim to
have good answers for everything either (but neither am I satisfied with
some of the answers given by young-earth creationists and/or progressive
creationists) So here is a brief sketch of a response. More later (time
premitting)

1. To say that death is needed for the world we live in today to function is
not to say that it is needed forever. As Mike pointed out Romans 8:20,21
teaches that God subjected the creation to decay. Perhaps God made
that choice based on His own inscrutable reasons, or perhaps it has
something to do with the fall of Satan. In any case it's clear
that at least some of the processes in nature that can be characterized
as decay and death are temporary. God revealed the plan of salvation in
stages separated in time, so perhaps it's reasonable that He also
is making the universe He wants in stages separated in time.

2. There may be some uncertainty as to the meaning of the Greek word
that is translated "creation" in Romans 8. It _could_ mean "all men"
as in Mark 16:15. See also II Cor 5:17 in which the same Greek word
is translated "creature" or "creation" depending on what translation
you look at. It may be a stretch, but you could consider "creation"
to mean "all men". I bring this up because it's difficult to imagine
an ecology in which nothing (not a bacterium, not an insect,...) dies.
If that's actually the case, fine. There is an element of the
miraculous here, but we are Christians and believe in miracles.
But in the absence of specifics it seems legitimate to ask
what are the implications of it not being the case. It's certainly
clear that in the new heaven and earth, humans don't die, of course.

3. Note that there is a hint that the end of _human_ death may be meant in
Romans 15:55-56, which ends with "The sting of death is sin...", since sin
has applicability only to humans.

Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)