Original Paradise

Or did the perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful God of love create an imperfect Creation? CAT continues to assert that a reason why the age of the earth is not a trivial point is by looking at the original creation (paradise).

We respond and affirm that God created an absolutely perfect world. But the problem and point of disagreement is the basis for that perfection. What standard are we going to use to judge this perfection? This problem has been covered in full in a book by Mark Whorton, Ph.D. in his work Peril in Paradise. There is a review of this book from the Seattle RTB Chapter in their Feb 2007 newsletter. [1] In this book there are two views presented: the "perfect paradise paradigm" and the "perfect plan paradigm." Reviewer Mike Brown writes:

According to the "perfect paradise paradigm," when God declared His creation "very good," He meant it was perfect in every way. Thus, Eden was the embodiment of the Creator's ideal intent for His creation. But, man's sin thwarted God's plan and ruined His perfect creation. So, God introduced the physical death of man and animals as a punishment for sin and He instituted the plan of redemption to reverse the effect of Adam's sin and restore all things back to their original intent.

According to the "perfect plan paradigm," God's creation was part of His perfect plan. It was good, but it was never meant to be perfect and Eden was not heaven. Thus, man's sin brought about human death but it didn't thwart God's plan, a plan that can't be thwarted. So, the creation and the Fall were part of God's perfect plan to bring people to Christ and God created the world with the ultimate purpose of demonstrating His glory at the end of history rather than the beginning. [1]

Having not read the original work, I don't know if I would modify the original writing or modify this review, but I would make one distinction in what we just read. I believe God created the world with the ultimate purpose of demonstrating His glory at the beginning, throughout history, and at the end. Dr. Ross likes to call this the "conquest of evil". I prefer to simply call it God's sovereign plan - working out through time.

Greg Moore has written on this by saying:

Some Christians point to Genesis 1:31 -- "God saw all that He had made, and it was very good." They argue God would not call a creation that included animal death "very good." However, we must be careful not to put too much weight on our ideas of what "good" means. The Bible does not tell us the creation was perfect. The Hebrew word for good, "towb", connotes a practical or economic benefit.[3] Thus, the creation was "very good" for achieving God's goals for mankind... Animal death in no way conflicts with that goal. [2]

So the real question as it pertains to the original creation is how do we judge its perfection? Do we rate it based on an emotionally charged humanistic expectation of justice or what we feel is the standard for perfection? Or should we let God define His own purpose and His own standard in why and how and when He created? I hope the answer is obvious to everyone.

When we get to heaven, we will not have the capacity to sin. However, Adam and Eve were given a free will to choose evil. In this one example we see a less than a perfect paradise. Yet to say that the creation was not perfect is to malign God's intention and power - so we reaffirm that the creation was absolutely perfect. That is perfect for the task God intended.

In the next installment, we will respond to specific quote from CAT on this issue of the original paradise. May God continue to bless the study of His word.

Notes:
[1] http://www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle/newsletters/200702/200702.pdf (accessed 06/29/2007)

[2] Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1? by Greg Moore.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/greg_moore_does_old_earth_creationism_contradict_genesis_1.shtml (accessed 06/19/2007)

[3] Ibid - referring to Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Bruce Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, Moody, 1980), 345.