Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Biology cannot be understood apart from teleology, so no, I am not. I mean exactly what I wrote. Our genes do not give us and do not determine our human nature. That statement is backwards. Our genes are what they are and function the way they do because of their relation to the human nature. Put still differently, the human nature is ontologically prior to our genes.

Understood, thanks.
So you agree that Original sin, whatever that may have been, was NOT passed down by Adam but is part of our nature? yes?
If so, that means that Adam and Eve, being human, would have sinned eventually, correct?

Philip wrote:I'll be interested to see K's thoughts.

Since I haven't read all your linked articles, I'll comment on Jac's response. I'm sure he's covered much. While he is quite forceful in Jac style, I think he is right on many things. If there's anything in particular I might miss you'd be interested in a further response to Phil, please draw my attention to it.

First up, re: "world" in Romans 5:12. This is the world we're within. I think it is a false-dichotomy, perhaps influenced by the YEC/Day-Age debate, to say "world" here refers to the living world. It seems clear to me that neither are the case i.e., it doesn't refer to "humanity" or "all created life". YECs/OECs might be motivated to try use this either way, but both are unjustified. Rather, the most plain reading is simply kosmos and we all know what that means -- the world we find ourselves within, our universe. Sin entered into the world, our world. We should draw the line there, rather than read anything further into this one verse alone.

So then, Romans 5:12 that "sin entered into the world" (not death, or even "sin and death" entering the world which I see a tad significance to!), and then we have added, "and death through sin" -- "sin entered into the world, and death through sin". Then on the other side a parallel statement, "[even] so death spread to all men, because all sinned".

Note that the comparison the Apostle Paul draws, especially in the later verses that follow, always has "Adam" in mind in the first comparative. For example, "the transgression of one [Adam]" v.15, judgement arising form Adam's sin resulting in condemnation (v.16), the transgression of one and death reigning through Adam's sin (v.17), one transgression (Adam's) resulting in condemnation to all men (v.18), one man's disobedience resulting in the many made sinners (v.19). So then, Paul is dealing with our relationship to God here, specifically arguing for our being saved and made righteous in Christ just like we were all condemned and made sinners in Adam.

I think we should be clear, that Paul's goal here is to justify our being made righteous in Christ and saved via Him. To do this, he draws parallel comparisons with all receiving the consequences of sin due to Adam's transgression. If such was true of Adam, that we've all sinned in Adam and receive condemnation and death (even those who have not sinned in Adam's likeness [Rom 5:14]), then it is equally true that by one man's act (our Lord Jesus Christ's) that we receive righteousness and are justified on His account. (this Paul also similarly reasons in 1 Cor 15:21-22)

Now some things should be said about "death" itself, since I'm sure Heiser doesn't like death being a consequence of sin. Scripturally, there is no way around it, all death is a result of sin. That doesn't lead to no death pre-fall, for such ignores the fact God well planned rescuing us via Christ prior to creating. (Ephesians 1:4-5; 1 Peter 1:20) Had we not sinned, the world would be very different, and there wouldn't have been this temporary world which is a "stepping stone" into the next, and Jesus wouldn't have been predestined before creation. Death isn't necessarily a punishment, though it is, but is more so a consequence -- AND it represents a spiritual message about God and us.

As Christians, we believe the spiritual was first, then the physical. Various structures and things in physical as I see it, are often a manifestation of some spiritual truth/s. We understand that God is the source of life, source of everything that exists. Without God, if God withdrew, we'd not have life, in fact we'd have nothing. Sin necessitates God's withdrawal since such is opposition to God's good and righteous nature. Even further, when we sin, righteousness demands God's judgement. And when judged, found guilty and condemned, we're separated from God. Being separated from God, we're left spiritually dead. If there is no solution to such, then that death remains forever. So it is more permanent death, and something each of us should fear. Physical death is a manifestation of the spiritual death that can happen and will happen to many, a signpost to those who read and understand the spiritual truths behind the physical.


Moving onto the next issue, I agree with Jac and don't think it needs much answering the question which goes something like, "why does Jesus get off the hook?" It does seems obvious as Jac points out, that Jesus is an exception, especially considering He is also fully divine. Further I'd add that "all" doesn't always mean all, not in our everyday use, and not in Scripture. No Christian would believe "All sin and fall short of the glory of God", including Jesus. If we do believe even Christ sinned, then our hope in Christ is in vain. We'll all end up righteously condemned by God at judgement and receive everlasting death -- there is no other known remedy. Further, Paul clearly makes an exception for Christ, and so, we disqualify Him from being read into the "all" even though Scripture really does say "all".


Now whether we must question Jesus' full humanity, if humanity has original sin yet Jesus didn't. Again, I agree with Jac. We have a broken image, a fallen human nature that will be fully restored and more hereafter due to our baptism in Christ. We were made in God's image, and then we became broken and needed healing. Human nature wasn't made sinful, but became sinful. It's not within human nature to have sin, even if we do sin. One may as well equally argue that because Jesus didn't sin, He's not fully human because humans sin. Hopefully we can all see that's just nonsense. Jesus is also fully divine.

The fact Jesus experienced death, some might argue was due to human sin. He should not have. Yet, there is something more in play here, for that the Law put Him to death when it shouldn't have, rightousness is now His to be had and not the Law. It seems to me the Law, God's righteous standard, is now in debt to Christ and indeed righteousness which belongs to God, demands Christ be recompensed. What did Christ say while dying? Forgive them. He knew He had that right, because He'd been forsaken to die a sinner's death. Jesus unjustly paid the wages of sin (death), not because he a sinful human nature, but rather as part of a grand plan to give Christ power over the Law and redeem those who sin and would otherwise need to pay their own wages.

In any case, some may not agree with everything I wrote there, but bottom line is Christ can very well have full human nature, and not be tainted by original sin. It is easier for Jac, because he simply believes we have a broken nature, whereas I see "original sin" is indeed taught in Scripture. Especially in the verses after Romans 5:12.


Moving on again, I have no idea what Augustine or Aquinas really said without looking into it, so... However, it is to me absurd to think "original sin" is had because all were in Adam's loins. Such is just wrong, as we didn't exist, not in physical form. And, if we did in non-physical form, then our spirits would have more been with God as I see matters while awaiting our embryonic vessel to arrive in. And yet, I believe in traducianism, that "genetics" or one's makeup doesn't just include biology but also our spiritual "DNA". Therefore, Adam's broken humanity, could equally be passed on.

I do believe that since the Fall we have been in need of a way in which we can be made righteous, and our natures be restored in relationship to God. I see Paul argues quite forcefully that we are made sinners on account of Adam. This is more than a mere "broken nature". We are condemned (v.18), we are made sinners (v.19) and clearly we all experience death -- "even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam." (v.14)

Paul's logic is that that we are saved by grace in Christ, by the same reasoning we are all made sinners and condemned in Adam. It we wish to accept Paul's good news that we are all saved in Christ, then we must equally accept the bad news that we all stand condemned in Adam. To deny one, is to deny the other. We often freely want to accept the good news about Christ and our forgiveness, yet we can't just pick and choose what sounds good and reject what doesn't.

The implication of "original sin", hidden in the background, is what then about infants? We must simply leave such in the hands of God, though I have faith in God to make a way, find some other loophole, so they too can be in Christ or minimally given a choice akin to us and angelic beings. So here I just rest, and leave it to the good grace of God, and Christ as such. Paul's logic in his argument is clear, we are forgiven and saved on account of one man Christ, in the same way we were condemned and made sinners on account of one man Adam. In this way, Adam was a type of him (Christ) who was to come (v14), only he was at the opposite end.

When sin "entered" into the world, is it meaning entered for the first time, or does it not make that distinction?

Kurieuo wrote: Now some things should be said about "death" itself, since I'm sure Heiser doesn't like death being a consequence of sin. Scripturally, there is no way around it, all death is a result of sin.

I'm not sure that assertion is an accurate representation of what Scripture teaches about the relationship between sin and death.
In fact, I think Rich Deem from our Home Site would disagree with that assertion.

From
No Death Before the Fall - A Young Earth Problem
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

The following represent the "best" arguments made by those who claim that there was no animal death before the Fall.

Romans 5:12
Romans 5:12 is one of the most egregious misuse of the scriptures by young earth creationists. As with the rest of scripture, one must read the verse in the context in which it occurs. My advice is to read the entire chapter of Romans 5. Here is a brief synopsis. In the chapter 4, Paul explained that justification before God is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, using the Old Testament scriptures. In chapter 5, he goes on to explain more about how we are justified. In verses 1-5, Paul explains the fruits of justification. In verses 6-11, Paul explains how Jesus Christ died for us as a sign of God's love, that we are justified by Christ's blood, being saved from God's wrath and reconciled to Him. In verses 12-21, he explains how sin entered the world through Adam and how we are made righteous through Jesus Christ. The entire focus of chapter 5 is mankind's Fall and redemption through Jesus Christ. The chapter has nothing to do with animals or the creation. Let's look at the specific text in question:

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-- (Romans 5:12)

The verse itself makes it clear that death through sin spread to all men, because of sin. Animals do not sin, so, to apply the verse to animal death is completely taking it out-of-context.

1 Corinthians 15:21
This verse is also quoted, but frequently only part of the verse is cited and usually verse 22 is left out.

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

Verse 22 clearly indicates that those who die are humans. If the death in verse 21 is applied to animals as well as humans, then those citing it would have to say that Christ's death will result in the resurrection of the animals. Of course this idea is taught nowhere in scripture, being, in fact, contradicted by it.

K: Now some things should be said about "death" itself, since I'm sure Heiser doesn't like death being a consequence of sin. Scripturally, there is no way around it, all death is a result of sin.

Heiser DOES confirm that death and sin are ultimately the consequence of sin, and specifically because of Adam rebellious and sinful decision to partake of the forbidden fruit. But as to HOW that was applied to us, Heiser says is due to what was removed post Adam's sin:

“Adam’s fall affected all humanity by depriving all humans forever more of the conditions under which they could abide with God in a state of non-sinfulness.

“After the Fall humans were destined to die, and not only that, they were “on their own” when it came to living in righteousness, a pre-condition for living with God. Adam and Eve met that condition before the fall; they did not need redemption until they sinned.

“His (God's) presence maintained this state, and they were in his presence. I think I would be on safe ground in saying that evangelical theologians across the board, rightly wanting God to get credit for Adam and Eve’s sinless state before the Fall, chalk it up (at least in part) to God’s superintending influence and presence in Eden. God was the chief reason they remained in pre-fall sinlessness. Once humans were removed from that, forget it. After the fall, human beings were left to their own efforts and in a hostile environment-the earth outside Eden. They would inevitably and invariably fail and be unable to save themselves.

Per question put to Heiser:

What about the time reference in Genesis 2:17? Why are we to assume physical death is meant if "in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die". Thanks

“Once driven out of the garden and away from the tree of life, death was inevitable and unstoppable. The story describes Adam and Eve as having contingent immortality -- their lives would not end if they remained in God's presence, ate from the tree of life, and didn't get expelled -- or so something real stupid, like cut off a limb and bleed to death. There's no time-point required in the verbal forms, or indicated by the verbal forms. The so-called "intensive" construction (imperfect verb form + infinitive absolute of the same lemma) indicates certainty or emphasis in outcome, but nothing in terms of time for that outcome is contained in the verb forms.”

K: Sin necessitates God's withdrawal since such is opposition to God's good and righteous nature. Even further, when we sin, righteousness demands God's judgement. And when judged, found guilty and condemned, we're separated from God. Being separated from God, we're left spiritually dead. If there is no solution to such, then that death remains forever. So it is more permanent death, and something each of us should fear. Physical death is a manifestation of the spiritual death that can happen and will happen to many, a signpost to those who read and understand the spiritual truths behind the physical.

And Heiser agrees with that we are born certainty that 1) we are not yet in fellowship with God and 2) We WILL, unquestionably, begin to sin, and will do so throughout our mortal lives.

K: It does seems obvious as Jac points out, that Jesus is an exception, especially considering He is also fully divine.

K: One may as well equally argue that because Jesus didn't sin, He's not fully human because humans sin. Hopefully we can all see that's just nonsense. Jesus is also fully divine.

Of course Heiser does not believe Jesus' humanity means that He inherited Adam's sin. Because he doesn't believe we even inherit Adam's SIN, but that the CONSEQUENCES of Adam's sin ARE imparted to ALL, so as that all are BORN with the inevitability to soon begin sinning - it's inescapable! But even so, Jesus is ALSO, and most importantly, GOD! As also fully God, He cannot sin, even while wearing the cloak of humanity. As with all others, in THEIR humanity, ALONE (without God's presence and fellowship, the Tree of Life, the Garden's protections), cannot resist sin or death. But Jesus wasn't ONLY human, and His God nature made it impossible for Him to sin. This is Heiser's assertion.

K: I see Paul argues quite forcefully that we are made sinners on account of Adam.

And Heiser agrees with that. And so HOW are we different as opposed to Adam and Eve, pre-sin? What changed due to Adam's sin? God reacted to Adam's sin with CONSEQUENCES that would assure all born from then on would definitely sin, including Adam and Eve – for the causes of the things Heiser said God withdrew: Which was primarily His presence, the protections of the Garden, the partaking in consuming the fruit from the Tree of Life. ALL subsequent humans inherited the absence of these as well, and thus all will sin, are born separated from God, and will soon begin sinning, are in need of a Savior/Jesus, all will physically die!

"Who told you that you were naked?" God's initial response to the Fall, points to a human's problem, imo.

Scripturally, there is no way around it, all death is a result of sin.

nice, K. I'm sure you meant "spiritual death" here, right. All spiritual death. The other being irrelevant.

bbyrd009 wrote:"Who told you that you were naked?" God's initial response to the Fall, points to a human's problem, imo.

Scripturally, there is no way around it, all death is a result of sin.

nice, K. I'm sure you meant "spiritual death" here, right. All spiritual death. The other being irrelevant.

All death.

RickD wrote:When sin "entered" into the world, is it meaning entered for the first time, or does it not make that distinction?

Bump

Depends on the force of "entered into the world." I see all of 5-8 as a unit, so I see Paul as having in mind the entirety of creation (cf esp Rom 8:18-25).On that view, it might be less about whether or not any part of creation had ever sinned before, but about how the creation itself was subjected to frustration and death through sin. So whether there was any sin before that (i.e., Satan's sin), temporally speaking, Paul's point seems to be that this is how the world itself became infected with sin.

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Now some things should be said about "death" itself, since I'm sure Heiser doesn't like death being a consequence of sin. Scripturally, there is no way around it, all death is a result of sin.

I'm not sure that assertion is an accurate representation of what Scripture teaches about the relationship between sin and death.
In fact, I think Rich Deem from our Home Site would disagree with that assertion.

From
No Death Before the Fall - A Young Earth Problem
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

The following represent the "best" arguments made by those who claim that there was no animal death before the Fall.

Romans 5:12
Romans 5:12 is one of the most egregious misuse of the scriptures by young earth creationists. As with the rest of scripture, one must read the verse in the context in which it occurs. My advice is to read the entire chapter of Romans 5. Here is a brief synopsis. In the chapter 4, Paul explained that justification before God is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, using the Old Testament scriptures. In chapter 5, he goes on to explain more about how we are justified. In verses 1-5, Paul explains the fruits of justification. In verses 6-11, Paul explains how Jesus Christ died for us as a sign of God's love, that we are justified by Christ's blood, being saved from God's wrath and reconciled to Him. In verses 12-21, he explains how sin entered the world through Adam and how we are made righteous through Jesus Christ. The entire focus of chapter 5 is mankind's Fall and redemption through Jesus Christ. The chapter has nothing to do with animals or the creation. Let's look at the specific text in question:

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-- (Romans 5:12)

The verse itself makes it clear that death through sin spread to all men, because of sin. Animals do not sin, so, to apply the verse to animal death is completely taking it out-of-context.

1 Corinthians 15:21
This verse is also quoted, but frequently only part of the verse is cited and usually verse 22 is left out.

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

Verse 22 clearly indicates that those who die are humans. If the death in verse 21 is applied to animals as well as humans, then those citing it would have to say that Christ's death will result in the resurrection of the animals. Of course this idea is taught nowhere in scripture, being, in fact, contradicted by it.

I'd agree with Rich, nonetheless death is still a consequence of sin.

Kurieuo wrote:

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Now some things should be said about "death" itself, since I'm sure Heiser doesn't like death being a consequence of sin. Scripturally, there is no way around it, all death is a result of sin.

I'm not sure that assertion is an accurate representation of what Scripture teaches about the relationship between sin and death.
In fact, I think Rich Deem from our Home Site would disagree with that assertion.

From
No Death Before the Fall - A Young Earth Problem
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

The following represent the "best" arguments made by those who claim that there was no animal death before the Fall.

Romans 5:12
Romans 5:12 is one of the most egregious misuse of the scriptures by young earth creationists. As with the rest of scripture, one must read the verse in the context in which it occurs. My advice is to read the entire chapter of Romans 5. Here is a brief synopsis. In the chapter 4, Paul explained that justification before God is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, using the Old Testament scriptures. In chapter 5, he goes on to explain more about how we are justified. In verses 1-5, Paul explains the fruits of justification. In verses 6-11, Paul explains how Jesus Christ died for us as a sign of God's love, that we are justified by Christ's blood, being saved from God's wrath and reconciled to Him. In verses 12-21, he explains how sin entered the world through Adam and how we are made righteous through Jesus Christ. The entire focus of chapter 5 is mankind's Fall and redemption through Jesus Christ. The chapter has nothing to do with animals or the creation. Let's look at the specific text in question:

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-- (Romans 5:12)

The verse itself makes it clear that death through sin spread to all men, because of sin. Animals do not sin, so, to apply the verse to animal death is completely taking it out-of-context.

1 Corinthians 15:21
This verse is also quoted, but frequently only part of the verse is cited and usually verse 22 is left out.

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

Verse 22 clearly indicates that those who die are humans. If the death in verse 21 is applied to animals as well as humans, then those citing it would have to say that Christ's death will result in the resurrection of the animals. Of course this idea is taught nowhere in scripture, being, in fact, contradicted by it.

I'd agree with Rich, nonetheless death is still a consequence of sin.

I agree 100% with the statement that "death is a consequence of sin"
But that is different from the statement that "all death is a result of sin"
"all death" would include all of the following
human spiritual death
human physical death
animal death
plant death
And Rich Deem clearly believes that the death described in Romans 5:12 does not include plant and animal death.

In Christ

Jac3510 wrote:Depends on the force of "entered into the world." I see all of 5-8 as a unit, so I see something very universal in Paul's mind. In that view, it's less about whether or not any part of creation had ever sinned before, but about how the creation itself was subjected to frustration and death through sin. So whether there was any sin before that (i.e., Satan's sin), Paul's point seems to be that this is how the world itself became infected with sin.

Any frustration of the creation was "because of Him who subjected it" for some good reason, which is so the creation could enter the glorious liberty of the Children of God (those who are in Christ Romans 8:16).

This frustration in Romans 8:20, if one believes it is "death", cannot be "through sin" as in Romans 5:12; it is through God's will. Therefore the frustration cannot just be "death through sin", unless one makes God complicit with sin too. There is also a purpose here as to why such frustration exists, because it aligns with God's ultimate plan, which surrounded God's redemptive plan.

As just a side note, I'll remind you of something you pointed out to me. Paul spoke of "sin" in personal terms. Ergo, the world didn't become infected with sin per se, but rather Sin entered into the world. Saying "with sin" seems to carry more of a certain lens. Small point perhaps, I don't know. Seems relevant to state.

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Now some things should be said about "death" itself, since I'm sure Heiser doesn't like death being a consequence of sin. Scripturally, there is no way around it, all death is a result of sin.

I'm not sure that assertion is an accurate representation of what Scripture teaches about the relationship between sin and death.
In fact, I think Rich Deem from our Home Site would disagree with that assertion.

From
No Death Before the Fall - A Young Earth Problem
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

The following represent the "best" arguments made by those who claim that there was no animal death before the Fall.

Romans 5:12
Romans 5:12 is one of the most egregious misuse of the scriptures by young earth creationists. As with the rest of scripture, one must read the verse in the context in which it occurs. My advice is to read the entire chapter of Romans 5. Here is a brief synopsis. In the chapter 4, Paul explained that justification before God is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, using the Old Testament scriptures. In chapter 5, he goes on to explain more about how we are justified. In verses 1-5, Paul explains the fruits of justification. In verses 6-11, Paul explains how Jesus Christ died for us as a sign of God's love, that we are justified by Christ's blood, being saved from God's wrath and reconciled to Him. In verses 12-21, he explains how sin entered the world through Adam and how we are made righteous through Jesus Christ. The entire focus of chapter 5 is mankind's Fall and redemption through Jesus Christ. The chapter has nothing to do with animals or the creation. Let's look at the specific text in question:

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-- (Romans 5:12)

The verse itself makes it clear that death through sin spread to all men, because of sin. Animals do not sin, so, to apply the verse to animal death is completely taking it out-of-context.

1 Corinthians 15:21
This verse is also quoted, but frequently only part of the verse is cited and usually verse 22 is left out.

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

Verse 22 clearly indicates that those who die are humans. If the death in verse 21 is applied to animals as well as humans, then those citing it would have to say that Christ's death will result in the resurrection of the animals. Of course this idea is taught nowhere in scripture, being, in fact, contradicted by it.

I'd agree with Rich, nonetheless death is still a consequence of sin.

I agree 100% with the statement that "death is a consequence of sin"
But that is different from the statement that "all death is a result of sin"
"all death" would include all of the following
human spiritual death
human physical death
animal death
plant death
And Rich Deem clearly believes that the death described in Romans 5:12 does not include plant and animal death.

In Christ

It's only a problem if one sees the sole reason for "death" as a punishment. Rich argues that it would be unjust for animals and the rest of creation to be punished for mankind's sin. I agree. But, here is a false dichotomy: Either you accept that death is a punishment for sin, or you accept that death is a good and natural part of creation.

It's false, because you can accept that physical death was a punishment, but also a good intention of God to bundle certain spiritual truths regarding eternal life, or our second death should we eternally separated from God's glory.

Reflect upon what would Adam have understood as death, if he had not been witnessed it? Really, Adam no doubt enjoyed the close relationship with God that no other creation had. To turn on God and stain that relationship, would surely mean separation of such closeness and as such he would not longer be protected and death would unfold. So then, the ultimate consequence is separation from God. Death naturally unfolds from such. This spiritual message was illustrated by God in His physical setup, so that people would see and turn back to Him through Christ who was predestined before creation.

Therefore, as Christ was to be sent into the world on account of sin (prior to our having sinned), death too (all death) can be seen as in the world on account of our sin (prior to our having sinned). If we had not sinned, which was never going to be the case for this world God created prior to which He had already mapped out a plan for our redemption via Christ, then the created world would have been different.

And Rich Deem clearly believes that the death described in Romans 5:12 does not include plant and animal death.

No, Rich in that article says, "The chapter has nothing to do with animals or the creation." This is not the same as saying that Romans 5:12 excludes all death.

Romans 5:12a neither precludes nor concludes "all death". So we should stop at where Paul stops, and at most say he is making a general statement: "sin entered into the world, and death through sin." The fuller context shows that Paul is more concerned with making an argument for all humanity being saved in Christ, like all humanity fell in Adam. Yet, the first half verse 12 alone, is quite general and open-ended.

How one reads Romans 5:12a within the context of their own creation position is up to them -- but in doing so they are applying their creation framework to exegete Paul's words and apply such into a separate topic of importance to them (creation) which Paul clearly isn't focused upon in this chapter. So then, I agree with Rich's statement.

Kurieuo wrote:

DBowling wrote:[
I agree 100% with the statement that "death is a consequence of sin"
But that is different from the statement that "all death is a result of sin"
"all death" would include all of the following
human spiritual death
human physical death
animal death
plant death
And Rich Deem clearly believes that the death described in Romans 5:12 does not include plant and animal death.

It's only a problem if one sees the sole reason for "death" as a punishment. Rich argues that it would be unjust for animals and the rest of creation to be punished for mankind's sin. I agree. But, here is a false dichotomy: Either you accept that death is a punishment for sin, or you accept that death is a good and natural part of creation.

I think there is a third option...
Physical death is a good and natural part of the 'present good creation' which as you pointed out in a post above...

Any frustration of the creation was "because of Him who subjected it" for some good reason...

But the 'present good creation' is not the end of the story. And what may be good and natural for God's purposes in the present creation is not necessarily good and natural for God's perfected creation in the eternal state.
In the eternal state we see heaven and earth coming together, and it is the coming together of heaven and earth that finally frees God's good creation from it's bondage to decay, making it perfect and complete.

And I think the Garden of Eden was a preview of of sorts for the New Heaven/New Earth eternal state.

In Christ