PC and the fall

[Nicki]

Talking about the fall in another thread got me thinking about its place in progressive creation/day-age theory. My background is that until recently nearly all I read or heard about creation events was on the side of young-earth creationism, and presented old-earth ideas as compromising Scripture. My view was that God can do anything and why not take his word at face value and simply accept that he could have created everything in six days?

While on this forum however I've become more open to other ideas. I'm just wondering about old-earthers' views on the fall of man and what effect that had. I originally (when first a Christian) assumed that its main effect was spiritual death for humans - that what was lost is what Christ gained back for us. We don't physically live for ever when we believe in him - we gain spiritual eternal life. Then I read something which said the fall actually brought physical death into the world - that previously people and animals would never have died physically. I found this counter-intuitive - so much in nature seems to be designed for the purpose of killing other animals to eat or for avoiding being killed. And what about plants - they're living things as well. I don't find this idea supported in Genesis either - it's just possibly alluded to later in passages like Isaiah 11:6 and Romans 8:19-22.

I found an article on the main site which also said the fall brought spiritual death. Do you think this was its only effect, and how does this fit with God seeing that everything was good when first created, and then the scripture from Romans which talks about creation being subjected to decay?

[Kurieuo]

Hi Nicki,

The most important element of the fall, when humanity chose to go against God, was the spiritual separation that happened.
Such that, we must now be born again, not of water but of the Spirit in order to be somewhat reinstated.
This is not a spiritualising, but the primary meaning and focus I believe in the text.
Humanity, men and women, being separate from God.

Therefore God took the Tree of Life from the garden so that should wouldn't eat.
Because if they ate from it, then they would live forever. (Gen 3:22) So the way to the Tree of Life was guarded. (Gen 3:23)
Personal comment, this already plants, for those who know, the seeds that while we were banished there is a way - the way to the Tree of Life.

The defining thing about the fall, isn't that humanity felt the affects of physical death.
But, that we were banished from the source of all life (God), and now had to fend for ourselves and be clothed (Gen 3:21; Gen 3:23-24).
And of all things, God clothed us with animal skins (don't tell any animal lovers that until you know they're Christian! )

Being separated from the source of life, even away from the Tree of Life, now we were on our own.
If there was the prerogative that humanity would not die, unlike the prey of carnivorous "beasts of earth" (Gen 1:24-25; Gen 1:30),
then that was lost when God banished us from his presence. If we want to know why God is withdrawn from us, it is because we (humanity) have offended Him. And now, we need to find the Way back [I'd theologically argue to the Tree of Life]; "wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction... the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matt 7:13-14)

So, the main issue is our separation from God. That, is what needs fixing.
Our eventual physical death underscores the fact that we are not longer sustained by God.
However, those who find the Tree of Life: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

I've tried to pack in here a lot of Christian theology and Scripture coloured with interesting reflections.
Some of it isn't specific to a Progressive Creation position but is very compatible picture.

[Nicki]

Thanks, K. I take it back that there was nothing in Genesis about the death of animals starting with the fall, given the mention of 'green plants for food' for all the animals. I agree that the main effect of the fall was separation from God but was just looking for clarification on the origin of physical death in PC.

[Kurieuo]

Sorry, I blabber on sometimes huh?

To be clear PCs believe that death only came to humanity (Adam and Eve) after sinning.
And they believe animals were dying well before and that there is nothing inherently wrong with that anymore than more than insects or plants dying. If there was something sinfully wrong about animal death, then the fact God gives meat for eating (Gen 9), and even gives the lion their prey (Psalm 104:21) would make Him an active participant in such and culpable.

Also, consider Genesis 1:26-28 and what it could mean to have dominion over the fish of the sea, if not something like catching and eating like Simon Peter casting his net with Jesus:

• 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

This and then every green plant which comes after parallels Genesis 9 where one could argue "dominion" is more fleshed out. God explicitly says meat can be eaten.

One also has to weigh up, whether sin had creative power like Christ in John 1:3 where it is written:

• All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Christ was responsible for causing absolutely everything that has come into existence, but I don't see a warrant in Scripture to believe sin was responsible for bringing something else into being (i.e., evolving carnivorous lions from herbivore lions). Satan would like such creative ability I'm sure, but he's not God. And he might at least like to be credited with destroying God's "perfect" (or is it "good"?) creation, but I don't think so.

Re: Romans 8, Jac and I had an extensive discussion some time ago about this. It was actually the passage re: death in Romans 5:12.
It was an interesting discussion. I'll see if I can find it if interested?
Rich has a detailed Day-Age/PC response to Romans 8.

[RickD]

Two things got me to think, and eventually stop believing in YEC. Then I came to this site.

The first thing was when I was listening to the Dennis Prager radio show, and he had a Jewish Rabbi on his show. The Rabbi was talking about "yom", and how it has more than one meaning in ancient Hebrew.

And the second thing was after reading Romans 5:12:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

After hearing the rabbi talk about yom, then I read Romans 5:12, and it was like a light turned on inside my head. One man sinned, and death spread to all men.

Hey, wait a minute! Ken Ham has been telling me that Adam's sin brought death to man and animals. But animals don't sin nor need redemption from sin. So why would Adam's sin cause animal death, when Romans 5:12 says sin brought death to all men?

[abelcainsbrother]

The fossils that are now used as evidence for evolution proves that death happened before Adam and Eve and a correct understanding of God's word confirms this so that more of God's word has been revealed true and this should be added in with all of the other ways God's word has been confirmed true but sadlly we cannot add this amazing evidence into all of the other evidence we know about because of other interpretations that are more popular.

It is a shame the church is not teaching the truth about the fossils and so evolution gets to use them as evidence,when they have nothing to do with evolution.The truth has been covered up by Satan and I think the truth needs to be taught but is not being done.

It really comes down to not only how we choose to interpret God's word but also how we interpret the evidence in the earth too and there are really only two ways to interpret the evidence in the earth and these are from an evolution POV or a former world,a lost world POV.

[RickD]

The fossils that are now used as evidence for evolution proves that death happened before Adam and Eve and a correct understanding of God's word confirms this so that more of God's word has been revealed true and this should be added in with all of the other ways God's word has been confirmed true but sadlly we cannot add this amazing evidence into all of the other evidence we know about because of other interpretations that are more popular.

It is a shame the church is not teaching the truth about the fossils and so evolution gets to use them as evidence,when they have nothing to do with evolution.The truth has been covered up by Satan and I think the truth needs to be taught but is not being done.

It really comes down to not only how we choose to interpret God's word but also how we interpret the evidence in the earth too and there are really only two ways to interpret the evidence in the earth and these are from an evolution POV or a former world,a lost world POV.

Why does Satan get all the credit, when it's perfectly reasonable to think that man just doesn't have perfect knowledge?

[Kurieuo]

<post removed>
Nevermind ACB, I just re-read.

[abelcainsbrother]

The fossils that are now used as evidence for evolution proves that death happened before Adam and Eve and a correct understanding of God's word confirms this so that more of God's word has been revealed true and this should be added in with all of the other ways God's word has been confirmed true but sadlly we cannot add this amazing evidence into all of the other evidence we know about because of other interpretations that are more popular.

It is a shame the church is not teaching the truth about the fossils and so evolution gets to use them as evidence,when they have nothing to do with evolution.The truth has been covered up by Satan and I think the truth needs to be taught but is not being done.

It really comes down to not only how we choose to interpret God's word but also how we interpret the evidence in the earth too and there are really only two ways to interpret the evidence in the earth and these are from an evolution POV or a former world,a lost world POV.

Why does Satan get all the credit, when it's perfectly reasonable to think that man just doesn't have perfect knowledge?

John 10:10 plus Jesus warned of great deception in the last days so that the very elect of God could be deceived.Satan is a liar and the father of it.

[Nicki]

Sorry, I blabber on sometimes huh?

To be clear PCs believe that death only came to humanity (Adam and Eve) after sinning.
And they believe animals were dying well before and that there is nothing inherently wrong with that anymore than more than insects or plants dying. If there was something sinfully wrong about animal death, then the fact God gives meat for eating (Gen 9), and even gives the lion their prey (Psalm 104:21) would make Him an active participant in such and culpable.

Also, consider Genesis 1:26-28 and what it could mean to have dominion over the fish of the sea, if not something like catching and eating like Simon Peter casting his net with Jesus:

• 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

This and then every green plant which comes after parallels Genesis 9 where one could argue "dominion" is more fleshed out. God explicitly says meat can be eaten.

One also has to weigh up, whether sin had creative power like Christ in John 1:3 where it is written:

• All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Christ was responsible for causing absolutely everything that has come into existence, but I don't see a warrant in Scripture to believe sin was responsible for bringing something else into being (i.e., evolving carnivorous lions from herbivore lions). Satan would like such creative ability I'm sure, but he's not God. And he might at least like to be credited with destroying God's "perfect" (or is it "good"?) creation, but I don't think so.

Re: Romans 8, Jac and I had an extensive discussion some time ago about this. It was actually the passage re: death in Romans 5:12.
It was an interesting discussion. I'll see if I can find it if interested?
Rich has a detailed Day-Age/PC response to Romans 8.

Don't worry - I liked your blabbering Since Genesis 9 was after the fall though, could it be said that meat-eating etc was actually part of God's curse on creation, his new design as it were? Not that I really like that idea. I'll have a look at the article and the other discussion sounds good as well - I'll look for that too.

[Nicki]

Two things got me to think, and eventually stop believing in YEC. Then I came to this site.

The first thing was when I was listening to the Dennis Prager radio show, and he had a Jewish Rabbi on his show. The Rabbi was talking about "yom", and how it has more than one meaning in ancient Hebrew.

And the second thing was after reading Romans 5:12:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

After hearing the rabbi talk about yom, then I read Romans 5:12, and it was like a light turned on inside my head. One man sinned, and death spread to all men.

Hey, wait a minute! Ken Ham has been telling me that Adam's sin brought death to man and animals. But animals don't sin nor need redemption from sin. So why would Adam's sin cause animal death, when Romans 5:12 says sin brought death to all men?

Very good point. But wouldn't there have ended up being something of an overpopulation of people in the world if no one ever died?

[Kurieuo]

Don't worry - I liked your blabbering Since Genesis 9 was after the fall though, could it be said that meat-eating etc was actually part of God's curse on creation, his new design as it were? Not that I really like that idea. I'll have a look at the article and the other discussion sounds good as well - I'll look for that too.

Yes, you could say that.
I personally find the parallels strong between Genesis 1 and 9, mixed in with our having dominion over fish and others animals.
Really, I can't picture many ways that we could have dominion over fish except with catching and eating them.
Of course this can be explained away. There are no words in Genesis 1 that say, "God gives you meat to eat."
So we have to decide which interpretation makes the greatest sense and I think who assumes the least.

So go back to the drawing board, and ask yourself what do YECs say about what happened at the fall?
Well the postulate all sorts of stuff. That, carnivorous animals could survive on a vegetarian diet.
Mosquitoes drank nectar and not blood, and so on and so forth. Others say that animals has some physical changes.

For all the length some go to prove no death before the fall, ignoring what are equal interpretations that fit the facts better.
What Scripture lends support to fill in these blanks in how animals transitions from herbivores to carnivores?
Let me quote Answers in Genesis on this issue:

Many have thought up theories suggesting how this change might have occurred, but there is no overwhelming biblical support for any single theory.

No overwhelming support for any such change? I say the support is also not even underwhelming. Zero support really.

Where does the idea come from then?
Well, traditionally, it goes all the way back to Augustine and his theodicy (solution to the problem of evil in the world given a good and loving God). Augustine put forward that the reason the world is so wrong, and there is pain and suffering, was due to sin corrupting the world.
So the support is extra-Biblical. Traditional. Augustine was a big influence over Western Christian thought.
Good thinker, someone to respect as lets give some leeway considering he didn't have the same richness of Christian theology that we do today.
But, nonetheless, some his thoughts I'd find completely unacceptable and unorthodox to say the least.

There's a little irony to those who value Scripture also, and look to Augustine's theology.
Because he said (to the glee of the Catholic contingent at this board ), "I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church." So, one might well ask, where did Augustine get much of his ideas truly: Scripture, or in dialogue within the Church?

[PaulSacramento]

Nowhere in Genesis do we find the explicit statement that death only existed AFTER the fall.
In Paul we have the explicit statement that death came to ALL MEN after the fall because of sin entering the world.

Now, the theological significance of Paul's statement is the crucial one.
Does that mean that there was no death for humans BEFORE the fall ( IF there were other humans that is)?
Note that in Genesis, God warns that eating of the forbidden tree will result in death BUT that Adam and Eve do NOT die.

So what was meant?

[Nicki]

Nowhere in Genesis do we find the explicit statement that death only existed AFTER the fall.
In Paul we have the explicit statement that death came to ALL MEN after the fall because of sin entering the world.

Now, the theological significance of Paul's statement is the crucial one.
Does that mean that there was no death for humans BEFORE the fall ( IF there were other humans that is)?
Note that in Genesis, God warns that eating of the forbidden tree will result in death BUT that Adam and Eve do NOT die.

So what was meant?

They didn't die immediately but they must have some time later.

[PaulSacramento]

Nowhere in Genesis do we find the explicit statement that death only existed AFTER the fall.
In Paul we have the explicit statement that death came to ALL MEN after the fall because of sin entering the world.

Now, the theological significance of Paul's statement is the crucial one.
Does that mean that there was no death for humans BEFORE the fall ( IF there were other humans that is)?
Note that in Genesis, God warns that eating of the forbidden tree will result in death BUT that Adam and Eve do NOT die.

So what was meant?

They didn't die immediately but they must have some time later.

Not really an explanation since the actual verses states:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”