Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:Rom 5:12 explicitly talks about humans and not animals.. Also Romans 8:22 states that since the beginning of creation, it has always been in pain (i.e. death).

Rom 8:22 doesn't say anything about the beginning of creation, much less that it has "always been in pain." Now, if you want to reply to the exegesis I provided, feel free. If you just want to provide one line dismissals, feel free, and we'll have nothing more to say.

Jac,

I've outlined out some of our areas of disagreement and you've responded and I'm fine with leaving most of them where they are as I'm not particularly interested in interminably arguing this and I believe others can observe and draw their own conclusions.

I have one more general question however with regard to your overall approach and view. Do you honestly believe that Paul or any of the early Christians receiving this letter in Romans would approach the text with the framework of understanding that you suggest? For instance, you appeal to an analogy of physical death with your analogy of a flower physically dying the day it is plucked and in so doing effectively present that spiritual and physical death are synomomous and indistingishable in this passage.

What the earliest reference in the context of Church History that you are aware of for attempting to draw this type of parallel?

blessings,

bart

Do you honestly believe that Paul or any of the early Christians receiving this letter in Romans would approach the text with the framework of understanding that you suggest?

Obviously, yes. The framework I'm suggesting is the framework in which ALL letters are read. Why should Romans be any different?

For instance, you appeal to an analogy of physical death with your analogy of a flower physically dying the day it is plucked and in so doing effectively present that spiritual and physical death are synomomous and indistingishable in this passage.

The flower analogy is my own. The biblical statement is that Adam and Eve would die on the very day they ate the fruit. Some church fathers took that as physical death by understanding the "day" that they ate of it as 1000 years. So, while the CFs and I agree on the basic premise--that the death spoken of is physical--the mechanism to explain the biblical statement is up for grabs. I'll also point out, again, that this was the view of the Jewish literature of the time, too, with which Paul would have been deeply familiar and likely in broad agreement. So like I said, I suggested my own. Moses didn't feel the need to provided a more detailed explanation. I submit to you that, for him, it was enough that God said it, and he expected that to be enough for his readers. He left them to work out the underlying theology.

To work out that theology, then, by arguing that what God REALLY meant was spiritual death is to impose a theological construct on the text that I think is foreign to Old Testament theology as a whole, and thus, not surprisingly, to NT Theology, and Pauline theology in particular, as well.

I've said this multiple times, and I'll say it AGAIN: we need to stop Christianizing our Bibles. Everything in Romans is firmly rooted in OT theology, especially the theologies of sin and death, and there is no doubt that the OT theology of sin and death is remarkably "earthy."

You missed this or chose not to answer it,

What's the earliest reference in the context of Church History that you are aware of for attempting to draw this type of parallel?

I think you may have been making a general claim to OT theology in your answer. I was wondering if you're aware of some interpretation back further that demonstrates that your espoused view and exegetical framework were present say before Augustine or Aquinus? Anything specific that you're aware of?

No, I did reply to that specifically. I said:

I wrote:Some church fathers took that as physical death by understanding the "day" that they ate of it as 1000 years. So, while the CFs and I agree on the basic premise--that the death spoken of is physical--the mechanism to explain the biblical statement is up for grabs.

Another example of how they attempted to solve the issue, while agreeing it was physical death, comes from Theophilus of Antioch (mid to late second century), in his letter to Autolycus, Book II, where he says:

• But some one will say to us, Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption.

I'm sure you can see from the nature of the discussion that Adam's physical life and death are entirely in view here. This is very similar to my view. I say that Adam died immediately and that it took nearly a thousand years for death to conquer him; Theophilus says that Adam drew death upon himself, which implies, again, that eventually, death finally conquered him.

AGAIN, the analogy itself is mine. The view from which I take it goes back to OT theology, rabbinical theology, and that of the early CFs, in the common agreement that the death Adam suffered from eating the fruit was both physical and on that day.

Jac, was man immortal before the fall?

Theophilus is not primarily rooted in Jewish Theology and Rabbinical Tradition to my knowledge. I believe he was a former pagan although there might have been some influence tracing back to Barnabus in terms of his discipleship.

I should have been more specific in any case. I was specifically interested in seeing any direct exegesis or handling of the passage from Romans that we're discussing that reflected these elements that you're claiming.

Canuckster wrote:Theophilus is not primarily rooted in Jewish Theology and Rabbinical Tradition to my knowledge. I believe he was a former pagan although there might have been some influence tracing back to Barnabus in terms of his discipleship.

Didn't say he was. You asked me for an early reference that took Adam's death to be physical on the day he ate the fruit. I provided Theophilus as one; the many church fathers who did so by taking the word "day" to refer to a thousand years (Adam's lifetime) as another; I further mentioned that rabbinic thought of the first century does the same as well. Three separate statements.

I should have been more specific in any case. I was specifically interested in seeing any direct exegesis or handling of the passage from Romans that we're discussing that reflected these elements that you're claiming.

I'm not aware of much direct exegesis from the CFs generally. I searched NewAdvent for references to Rom 5:12 and found pretty much it was limited to Augustine and Aquinas.

In any case, I don't see what the CFs have to do with anything. I provided a direct exposition, as requested, that introduces no elements that have ever been, all the way back to the CFs, radical ideas. Adam's death has always been treated as physical the day he ate of the fruit. The entire world has been treated as under condemnation. I don't know what you are looking for.

August wrote:Jac, was man immortal before the fall?

To follow Vos, only in the sense that death was not within him, and thus, would never have died "naturally." He was not immortal of having life intrinsic to him, however, for only God is immortal in that sense.

Jac,

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." I believe the passage is talking about spirtual death *and* physical death, but physical death was already guaranteed by Adam's sin- men knew they were going to die. The key here is that Paul is talking about the grace received through Christ to *overturn* the spiritual death.

Also, "Therefore" clearly means that Paul is dealing in the context of the preceding text- Romans 5:1-2 "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God." Here, we are purely in the context of Mankind. Romans 5:5 "And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured his love into our hearts by the Holy spirit, whom he has given us." We're still dealing with mankind. We rejoice in our sufferings, Rom: 5:3 , in the knowledge that we have been given the Holy Spirit.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, juist as sin entered the world through one man, and death though sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned." "Sin" here is used in the singular, meaning as by one man. By the sin of Adam. Sin entered into the world. The world of mankind is meant here for sure. Adam's tansgression and thus sin entering the world guranteed man's mortality and spiritual death. Romans for me likewise alludes to both mankind's physical and spiritual deaths- both of these things entered the world at the point of Adam's sin. Romans 5:12 is in my view talking about the world of mankind.

Jac, I couldn't get on with your exegesis, or the format (a rarity, brother) and for me the passage is dealing with mankind alone.

God bless

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." I believe the passage is talking about spirtual death *and* physical death, but physical death was already guaranteed by Adam's sin- men knew they were going to die. The key here is that Paul is talking about the grace received through Christ to *overturn* the spiritual death.

Frankly, I don't make that firm of a distinction between physical and spiritual death. Death of the nephesh is death of the nephesh.

With that said, I don't think that "the key here is that Paul is talking about the grace received through Christ to *overturn* the spiritual death." Paul already dealt with that in 3-4. He is certainly restating the case, but he is doing so as a foundation for his discussion on sanctification. That's the broader context. You can ignore the context if you like . . .

Also, "Therefore" clearly means that Paul is dealing in the context of the preceding text- Romans 5:1-2 "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God."

Be careful with the word "clearly." If something is really that clear, it doesn't need comment. Otherwise, adding the word "clearly" just makes it sound like you aren't THAT sure of your argument and are trying to cover it up. We all do it, myself included, but just saying to be a bit careful here.

Anyway, I already acknowledged that 5:12 goes back to the beginning of 5, but it isn't just 5:1-2. It is 5:1-11, which is centered on the idea of our having peace with God through Christ. But what is the problem in those verses compared against our peace with God? Answer: our ongoing suffering, which is what the entire section (5-8) addresses.

Here, we are purely in the context of Mankind. Genesis 5:5 "And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured his love into our hearts by the Holy spirit, whom he has given us." We're still dealing with mankind. We rejoice in our sufferings, Gen: 5:3 , in the knowledge that we have been given the Holy Spirit.

You are mistaken. While 3-4 may be strictly about mankind, what else could it be about, focused, as it is, on justification? But I've provided ample evidence that 5-8 is dealing with a much broader question and based on Paul's very commonly employed eschatology: it begins in 5:12 and concludes in 8:18ff. Paul is setting our suffering and sanctification in the context of the suffering and sanctification of the world.

That idea, by the way, forms the basis for the unit that deals with Israel in 9-11. Why bring up Israel? Certainly, some would have been curious about how Israel relates to God's plan for salvation, but I don't find God anywhere directing Scripture to be in response to our curiosity. So why 9-11? Answer: because Paul is interested in the sanctification of the whole world, evident from 5-8, which requires a discussion of Israel, since Israel is essential to that discussion.

Like I said, man, flow of argument. You can take 5:12 as referring only to mankind if you focus only and completely on Ron 3-4 and consider that the only context of the book.

Genesis 5:12 "Therefore, juist as sin entered the world through one man, and death though sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned." "Sin" here is used in the singular, meaning as by one man. By the sin of Adam. Sin entered into the world. The world of mankind is meant here for sure. Adam's tansgression and thus sin entering the world guranteed man's mortality and spiritual death. Romans. for me likewise alludes to both mankind's physical and spiritual deaths- both of these things entered the world at the point of Adam's sin. Romans 5:12 is in my view talking about the world of mankind.

No, "the world of mankind" is not meant "for sure." Perhaps it is meant, but not "for sure." That's the very issue under discussion.

Jac, I couldn't get on with your exegesis, or the format (a rarity, brother) and for me the passage is dealing with mankind alone.

I'm not sure where the difficulty is, but whatever floats your boat.

The most important thing about this passage for me is the broader context in which it is found. You want to limit it to the discussion on the justification of man, which is a completely different section. I want to include the nature of the unit in which it is found, namely, the restoration of the whole creation. I find your approach to be totally man-centered. It reminds me of the line Baptist preaches like to use, "The scarlet thread of redemption that runs through the whole Bible," or worse, "The Bible is the story of man's salvation."

Eh. When will we ever learn that the Bible isn't about us? It's about God and His kingdom. Romans isn't about our salvation. It's about God's plan for the whole world. In short, the OEC view, to me, is entirely too narrow and ignores entirely too many facts.

Jac,

"Therefore" - adv- "for that reason; accordingly, consequently." Oxford. Paul is CLEARLY following on from the preceding text.

And when I say "for sure" I'm talking from my perspective. Please don't nit-pick, Jac as this is how things begin to spiral into tedious point-scoring. I'm sure you know that I'm talking from my perspective and spent enough time in the post stating "in my view" and "I feel" not to have to keep saying it over and over again as to become too repetitive. I absolutely respect that it is an interpretation issue right now, as you well know.

Now I'll get back to your post.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:With that said, I don't think that "the key here is that Paul is talking about the grace received through Christ to *overturn* the spiritual death." Paul already dealt with that in 3-4. He is certainly restating the case, but he is doing so as a foundation for his discussion on sanctification. That's the broader context. You can ignore the context if you like . . . .

You can broaden the text as much as you like, Jac. Romans 5:12 is dealing with human sin, and the term "death" is referring to *human* death. You might choose to push Rom 3-4 aside but the context speaks for itself: Romans 5 is, in context, follows on from the preceding two chapters.

Jac3510 wrote:Anyway, I already acknowledged that 5:12 goes back to the beginning of 5, but it isn't just 5:1-2. It is 5:1-11, which is centered on the idea of our having peace with God through Christ. But what is the problem in those verses compared against our peace with God? Answer: our ongoing suffering, which is what the entire section (5-8) addresses..

Yes we suffer, but we have been given the grace of the Holy Spirit through Christ; there is salvation for these sufferings. Why 5-8 and not 3-8? Why are you splitting 3-4 from 5? You have acknowledged Paul has "restated" 3-4 but this is just not so; Paul is in full flight through 3, 4 and 5 and his theology speaks clearly to me.

Jac3510 wrote:You are mistaken. While 3-4 may be strictly about mankind, what else could it be about, focused, as it is, on justification? But I've provided ample evidence that 5-8 is dealing with a much broader question and based on Paul's very commonly employed eschatology: it begins in 5:12 and concludes in 8:18ff. Paul is setting our suffering and sanctification in the context of the suffering and sanctification of the world..

What is your point here, Jac? No where does the bible indicate that salvation is offered to any other creatures except humans, or even that animals are capable of sin.

Jac3510 wrote:I find your approach to be totally man-centered. It reminds me of the line Baptist preaches like to use, "The scarlet thread of redemption that runs through the whole Bible," or worse, "The Bible is the story of man's salvation.".

My approach is to focus on the context of the text. The context of the text is dealing with mankind. It's not about being man-centred/obsessed; it is what it is, and that's man's salvation through Christ.

Jac3510 wrote:Eh. When will we ever learn that the Bible isn't about us? It's about God and His kingdom. Romans isn't about our salvation. It's about God's plan for the whole world. In short, the OEC view, to me, is entirely too narrow and ignores entirely too many facts.

And I think you are ignoring the context of which Paul speaks, Jac.

God bless

Jac3510,

That Paul has moved on to a different context (from justification to sanctification) is recognized by all commentators. If you don't think that Rom 5 should be consistent with Rom 8, then there is nothing I can do for you.

In case I missed something I checked some commentaries: Geneva Study Bible 1599, Matthew Henry, John Gill and Zondervan. All of these place sanctification starting in Romans 6. So, clearly ALL have not and do not agree with you.

The immediate context for this is in 5:1-4, where Paul notes that even though we are saved, we still suffer tribulation and death.

Death is not mentioned here.

Clearly, Paul's theme in this chapter is deliverance from death--not eternal, spiritual death.

You are confusing spiritual death with the second death (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 10:28; Rev. 20:6, 13-15, etc.). The second death is eternal and includes both body and spirit. I showed on page 8 of this forum how to tell which type of death is being spoken of by listing the contrasting results, found in Romans 5, from the act of Adam and the act of Christ. It is spiritual death - Christians use this term as a description of our relationship towards God apart from salvation through Jesus.

As believers, we have eternal life now (John 3:36; Romans 6:4; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:5; 1 John 5:11-13). So the contrast with eternal life is spiritual death in Romans 5. Paul brings this contrast out in other places like Ephesians 2:1-5 and Colossians 2:13-14. I will repost my break down of the Romans 5 contrasts below. The contrast of physical death is physical resurrection (Romans 6:5; I Cor. 15:20-22).

In Genesis 3 there are two deaths. First was spiritual, directly resulting from sin (Gen. 3:6-13). The second was physical (Gen. 3:22, 5:5), resulting from God's protection. This would allow man to be redeemed through the death of Jesus. Otherwise, man would have lived physically forever, but spiritually lost (dead). This is why I believe Paul does not connect physical death with sin in I Cor. 15. Sin did not directly result in man's physical death.


Romans 8

The creation can't be humanity, because humanity is part of the sons of God. Rather, we are talking about the whole world, that is, the physical universe.

Creation here is the earth, not the universe. Man was given charge over animals and agriculture, more-or-less the ecosystem (Genesis 1, 2 and Ps. 8:6-8). So, Adam's sin should not have affected things beyond his control. This creation was put under subjection to frustration, when Adam sinned and sinners were now the rulers.

As you pointed out, even the saved struggle with sin. That is why it says both we and the creation are groaning. This is also why it says that the cure for both will be the revealing of the sons of God, when our bodies are redeemed, our resurrection (Romans 8:19, 21, 23).

Creation will be set free when it is brought back under the control of sinless man (and Christ) during the millennium. Later, this creation will be replaced, not restored, with a perfect creation.

My previous post

Romans 5:12-14 becomes important in the conversation about the age of the earth, because many see it as saying that all death was the result of Adam's sin. We will look at the text of chapter five to determine which kind of death is being spoken of.

Some confusion comes from the simple fact that death usually refers to a body. Paul speaks of this kind of death when he refers to Christ's sacrifice (Romans 5:6-8, 10). Yet, Paul speaks of other kinds of death:
Death to sin — Romans 6:2
Spiritual death — Romans 6:16, 7:8-13 and Ephesians 2:1, 5

So, what kind of death is Paul saying came through sin? The text shows us that it is spiritual and only effects humans. Let's look at verse 12:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

This death only comes to humans, because we sin. This is "spiritual death." Christians use this term as a description of our relationship towards God apart from salvation through Jesus. Below are some definitions, for this spiritual condition, found in the text:
Romans 5:6 — "we were helpless"
Verse 8 — "while we were yet sinners"
Verse 10 — "we were enemies"

We can also see that it is spiritual by contrasting the causes and effects (of Adam's sin verses Jesus' sacrifice) found in the following verses:
15) By the transgression of the one
Many died

By the grace (of Jesus Christ)
Grace of God and the gift

17) By the transgression of the one

Those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness

Death reigned through the one

Those…will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ

19) One man's disobedience
Many were made sinners

Obedience of the One
Many will be made righteous

21) Sin reigned in death

Grace would reign through righteousness

Looking at these verses I think it is clear. The opposite of this kind of death is grace and righteousness, not bodily resurrection as in I Corinthians 15:20-22. This therefore has nothing to do with physical death or its coming into the animal kingdom.dayage
Recognized Member

DA,

As I said to you earlier:

I wrote:If you can recognize the fallacy in that view and wish to recant and restate, perhaps along the lines I have already suggested ("The bottom line is that YECs have misinterpreted passages like Gen 1:30 and Rom 5:12 to teach that there was no death before the fall."), then we can move on with a discussion on particular verses. I hope to have my exegesis for Danny done later today, and I would like you to be able to participate in the discussion as well. But you and I can't do that, however, if you insist on appealing to circular logic to justify your views.

This point isn't a big one, DA, but it is important. I'm sure you can agree that if people can't agree on what the fundamental issues are, they won't get anywhere in conversation.

Jac3510 wrote:DA,

As I said to you earlier:

I wrote:If you can recognize the fallacy in that view and wish to recant and restate, perhaps along the lines I have already suggested ("The bottom line is that YECs have misinterpreted passages like Gen 1:30 and Rom 5:12 to teach that there was no death before the fall."), then we can move on with a discussion on particular verses. I hope to have my exegesis for Danny done later today, and I would like you to be able to participate in the discussion as well. But you and I can't do that, however, if you insist on appealing to circular logic to justify your views.

This point isn't a big one, DA, but it is important. I'm sure you can agree that if people can't agree on what the fundamental issues are, they won't get anywhere in conversation.

Dayage, what Jac is rightly asking is that we recognise this to be an issue of interpretation. You and I take a fairly similar line, but it is OUR interpretation of a text which can be interpreted how Jac is interpreting it. Jac's interpretation is evidence for his position. I believe it to be weak evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. I'm sorry if you already "get" this, but I can see Jac's point of contention, which he is asking you to acknowledge and recognise.

Dan