Triviality and PC Ministries - The Wrap Up

As a parting blow, CAT closes this chapter with the following:

Considering the emphasis of Ross's own ministry [RTB], it is ironic that he calls the age issue trivial. if so, why has he committed so much time and money to writing and speaking on this very subject? based upon his own actions, it is doubtful that he really believes this issue is "trivial." (CAT-24)

CAT then quotes from the Hugh Ross Creation and Time:

The battle line has been drawn over a peripheral point - the age of the universe and our earth. Misidentifying God or His key attributes could destroy the possibility of a person's relationship with Him. Misunderstanding God's strengths, capacities, and past works can impair the success of such a relationship. But misidentifying the timing of God's past works in the cosmos has little or no bearing on that relationship. Nor does it bear upon the Bible's authority. it appears ill-advised, then to make an issue out of such a trivial doctrinal point. (CAT-15 quoting Ross in Creation and Time)

Christ and the Gospel - that is the main thing. If it could be shown that the YEC view of the age of the earth truely impacts the Gospel - then it is time for me and for every PC to rethink thier position.

I am convinced that the YEC position is wrong. However I'm just as convinced that I could be wrong too. It is not a core doctrine of the faith. I would not call it trivial as far as the complexity and depth of the arguments- but it is not something that should divide us.

So what about the allegation of ministries (and this blog) devoted to the subject? I wont speak for RTB, but as for me, I desire to see the body of Christ move past this divisive issue and to unite against our common enemies and essentially share the gospel of Christ to a dying world.

For it's the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation - not the young or old earth position that saves.

This wraps up the section on CAT Triviality. As a summary - here are links to the appropriate sections in the order that CAT presents them.

Introduction part 1 Bringing out the guns
Introduction part 2 Who is Hugh Ross
Introduction part 3 Brief Summary of Dr. Ross's book

Is the Age of the earth trivial

Physical death came through sin

Original paradise part 1
Original paradise part 2

Corruption and decay of paradise began with sin & judgement
Restoration of paradise
Purpose of death part 1 The models
Purpose of death part 2 Animal Death
Purpose of death part 3 Human Death after the Fall
Purpose of death part 4 The Problem of Evil
Purpose of death part 5 The Problem of Evil and Free Will
Purpose of death part 6 The Problem of Evil and a Sovereign God
Purpose of death part 7 Wrapping this up

Animal death
Christ - sadistic or totally good and loving?
Christ - all powerful all knowing absolute perfection.
Genesis is foundational
Trust in God's word
Health of the church
(this article - the wrap up)

Restoration of Paradise

We have already in prior posts noted that the original paradise was one of God’s purpose and plan – but not a paradise that would rival heaven on earth. We have also acknowledged that the Garden of Eden was a very special place especially planted by God. It is very probable that this garden was a complete paradise on earth. Yet we know that mankind did not stay there.
CAT states: There is a wonderful hope for the future, an essential part of the ultimate promise of the gospel. One day the Creator is going “to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets” (Acts 3:21, NIV) (CAT-18)

We need to be careful here. What does it mean to “restore everything” or restore all things. As incredible and as wonderful as Eden was – is this really all that we can expect for eternity?

Hugh Ross in “A Matter of Days” (which is the follow-on to his book Creation and Time which is the subject of CAT) wrote:

The book of Revelation, the intriguing and challenging conclusion to the Bible, presents a stunning glimpse of the new heavens and earth, including the “new Jerusalem.” The text establishes the time frame: after the Great White Throne Judgement, which permanently and irrevocably does away with all sin and evil (Rev 20:11-15. From careful reflection upon the descriptive details offered by the apostle John, the reader can gather that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, electromagnetism, will no longer remain in effect. Key indicators include the absence of shadows, night and day, pain, sorrow, death, hunger, and thirst, and so forth. The image of an enormous cube or pyramid – metaphorical or otherwise – gives a further hint about gravity’s absence. (Gravity forces all physical objects larger than a few hundred miles across into spherical shapes.) The picture that emerges from Rev 21 and 22 fits consistently with other New Testament passages indicating that the first creation, introduced in Gen 1 and 2, will cease to exist when God’s purposes for it, including the redemption of humanity and conquest of evil, are fully accomplished.

In this context the permanent restoration of an earthly paradise, even one as wonderful as the Garden of Eden, is not God’s ultimate goal. The heart of the gospel message is that Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection from the dead secure (for those who receive it) deliverance from the consequences of sin and, ultimately even from the presence and possibility of sin – deliverance to eternal life with God in this indescribably glorious realm. A creation limited by the cosmic space-time dimensions and the familiar physical laws is not sufficient to hold that reward. A significant doctrinal point here is that this entire universe and the “very good” conditions of the Garden of Eden before Adam’s fall into sin are inadequate to contain the wonders God has planned for His people.

By contrast, most leaders of young-earth creationist ministries teach that the universe was perfect – without decay, suffering, disorder, and death – before the Fall. They describe the new creation as a restoration and revamping of the original [1]

There is debate in the Christian community on the millennial kingdom.[2] For the moment lets assume that following the return of Christ there will be a literal 1000 year kingdom on earth. Many YEC advocates claim that the millennial kingdom will be a restoration of Eden. Rich Deem explains to the contrary:

Yes it is true that God will do away with animal death in the millennial kingdom.[3] However, none of these verses indicate that this is the way it was in Eden. The connection to this idea comes through a common young earth doctrine that claims that God will restore paradise back to the way it was in Eden. There is no biblical support for restoration theology. In fact, the Bible says that God will completely burn up the earth and its elements[4] and create an entirely new heavens and earth.[5] The new heavens and earth will be vastly different from Eden. For example, Eden was not without pain[6] and temptation to sin.[7] Although the original creation was very good,[8] it was not perfect, with even part of it being described as "not good."[9] The Bible indicates that we will be delivered from paradise into a kingdom that is eternal and perfect. [3-9]

PEACEFUL VEGETARIANS
The animals will again be vegetarian and at peace with one another (Isa 11:6-7,9) (added emphasis)

If all animals were originally vegetarians, then the word "again” in this quote is OK. That is the YEC interpretation and that is fine. However the Isaiah quote does not imply that this is going back to some perfect state of the animal kingdom. This is eisogesis – the reading of an interpretation into the scriptures.

RESTORATION TO WHAT?
If Progressive Creationism is true, what kind of world can we look forward to in the restoration? A world of continuing animal death, mutations, extinctions, volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroid impacts, disease, and struggle? The Bible teaches the contrary. We look forward to paradise.

Yes the Bible does teach to the contrary. I have tried to put forth a most congenial attitude in my response to CAT. Yet I am repulsed and saddened by the sarcasm and condescending attitude expressed by CAT at this point. No Christian (YEC or OEC) believes that any of these things will continue in the new heaven and new earth. No we believe that God will consume this present world in a fervent heat and will cease from His creative 7th-day rest and will create again – this time it will be the perfect paradise.

So what will heaven be like? I heartily recommend a wonderful article on heaven at:
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/heaven.html

NOTES:

[1] Hugh Ross, “A Matter of Days” pgs 111-112. Note that an extensive list of YEC citations on the perfect universe and the restoration and revamping of the original is given in the end notes for this chapter of A Matter of Days – not duplicated here.

[2] The contributors to this blog do not necessarily agree on millennial eschatology – but the important thing to remember is that this is a non-essential doctrine of the faith and it is imprudent and even sin to divide over issues like this. Likewise the age of the earth is a similar non-essential (or as CAT would say “trivial”) This is why we are addressing this chapter of CAT because whether OEC or YEC – we have the same mandate – to share the glorious gospel of Christ and to glorify and honor Christ in our lives – not to convert everyone to a certain age of the earth view or millennial view.

[3-9] Items [3]-[9] notes come from an article by Rich Deem at
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html (accessed 7-17-07)


[3] And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will graze, Their young will lie down together, And the lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:6-9)

[4] But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:7)But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10) looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! (2 Peter 3:12) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18) "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." (Mark 13:31) "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." (Luke 21:33) And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, "YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN." And this expression, "Yet once more," denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, in order that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. (Hebrews 12:26-27)

[5] ”For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind. (Isaiah 65:17) But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:13)And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. (Revelation 21:1)

[6] "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

[7] God allowed the pure evil (satan in the form of the serpent) to tempt Eve.

[8] God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

[9] Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." (Genesis 2:18)

Corruption and Decay of Paradise

The corruption and decay of paradise began with man’s sin and God’s judgment (Gen 3:14-19) (CAT-18)

In another blog entry we have already seen that the original creation was not a perfect paradise but that it was perfect for the task with which God intended. So this whole section of CAT proceeds from a false assumption.

DEGENERATED UNIVERSE: Nothing in our fallen world is really perfect today. One day the Creator will burn it all and create a fresh new universe. (II Pet 3:10-13, Isa 65:17, 66:22) In the original world, all was “very good.” It is therefore evident that animals and all creation have degenerated. (CAT-18)

Well, we agree that our world is fallen today. We agree God will burn it all away and create a new heavens and earth – but we believe that it will be FAR better than the original creation. (see the next blog entry on the new creation). We agree the world was “very good.” However, the next statement is that it is therefore evident that things had degenerated.

What exactly makes this evident? Animal suffering and carnivorous activity? We’ve already seen that this is actually a good thing for ecosystems. Tornadoes, hurricanes, and other “natural” evils? In regards to our weather, we have an extremely fine tuned planet where just right conditions bring about just enough of these weather events, but not enough that it is catastrophic to advanced life. Just as an example:

"[Hurricanes] counterbalance the ocean's tendency to leach carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This leaching, if unchecked, would result in a catastrophic cooling of the planet. On the other hand, hurricanes prevent the oceans from trapping too much of the sun's heat by helping to circulate greenhouse gases globally as they shade the ocean locally, preventing heat from building up too dramatically for the safety of certain sea creatures."'[1]

Likewise earthquakes play a vital role in providing for mankind's survival. Without them, "nutrients essential for land life would erode off the continents and accumulate in the oceans. In a relatively brief time, land creatures, at least the advanced species, would starve."[2] But thanks to the movements of the Earth's tectonic plates, these nutrients are recycled back onto the continents.[3]

The Fall and God’s curse are the ultimate reasons why our world today is so imperfect… (CAT-18)

There are aspects of our world today that are stunningly beautiful – or still work with such complexity and simplicity at the same time that it brings honor and glory to God. Even though nature has been affected by sin, it still reveals the glory of God. Certainly sin is a horrible blight – but I don’t think we should judge that the world is so imperfect. We can see from the blog entries on the purpose of death, that even death and evil are used in God’s plan to further His glory and benefit His children. Nature on planet earth is mainly affected by fallen caretakers.

THORNS AND THISTLES. Progressive Creationists would be forced to say that thorns and thistles (and all other weeds) did not begin with the Fall, for they are found deep in the fossil record (millions of years before Adam, according to their theory – but buried by the Flood or later, according to young earth creationism. (CAT-18)

Genesis 2:2-3 states, “And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.” (emphasis added)

It should be very clear from this text that God’s creative work was complete after the day 6 activities culminated by Adam and Eve. So both YEC and OEC camps must account for thorns and thistles after the fall. From this text we see that the creation of thorns and thistles had already occurred at the time of the Fall.

The concept of thorns and thistles is well addressed by Rich Deem at godandscience.com. Please refer to the full article for more depth. I will summarize with the following based on his article.

When Adam and Eve sinned, part of the result was a curse on the guilty parties. Part of the curse given to Adam was the curse on the ground…Genesis 2 describes the location of the creation of man in detail. The site was picked by God Himself. Not only that, but God Himself planted the garden and selected the plants "every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food" (Genesis 2:9). My guess is that God did not plant any weeds in the garden…

Let's get back to the curse. The curse of the ground is three-fold:

1. "In toil you shall eat of it"
2. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow"
3. "you shall eat the plants of the field"

The first point is pretty obvious. Adam was going to have to plant his own crops … and work a lot harder than he had been. The second point is that the weeds were going to grow a lot more. Quite significantly, the text does not say that God created the weeds - only that they would grow. The text says that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden into the real world of weeds and untended land (land that was in need of being "subdued").

The whole key to the curse is the third part. Adam was going to have to work the fields and could no longer just go up to a tree and grab some "fast food." The curse for Adam was being kicked out of the garden into the real world. [4]

I recommend to you the entire article again for a more in depth understanding of the curse and the ground.

THE EFFECTS OF SIN. Progressive Creationism contradicts the Bible by limiting the effects to the spiritual death of Adam, exclusion from a non-paradise garden, and a decrease in pain tolerance during childbirth. Essentially… that the natural world under Adam’s rule remained exactly the same before and after Adam’s sin. (CAT-18)

The effect of sin meant the following:

• spiritual death of Adam
• exclusion from the garden
• decrease in pain tolerance during childbirth. (notice that pain was present prior to the fall because God increases the pain that would be encountered during childbirth)

CAT claims that PC limits the effects of the fall to only items 1-3 – yet there are other effects that PC would adhere to that CAT conveniently leaves out in order to make a point.

• Eve's "desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." (Gen 3:16)
• eventual physical death of Adam and Eve (the tree of life was removed) and all humanity
• fallen humanity devastates the planet including the environment and animal populations
• curse on the serpent (satan) and yet the promise of a savior from Eve’s seed.
• curse on the land

To summarize:

Progressive Creationism does not go as far as the YEC in the extent of the curse on the land. Progressive Creationism does not contradict the Bible - it only contradicts the YEC interpretation of the Bible.

Remember the premise of this chapter is to show how the age of the earth is a significant theology. However, since these notions have been proven false, it still stands that the age of the earth is a trivial issue (compared to the Gospel)

Notes:
[1]Hugh Ross, "Hurricanes Bring More Than Destruction," Facts & Faith 12 (1998), pp.4-5. http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/98q4faf/index.shtml accessed 07-15-2007

[2] Hugh Ross, "Temblors Touch Off Questions," Facts & Faith 63 (1992), http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/92q3faf/index.shtml#temblors_touch_off_questions accessed 7-15-2007

[3] Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 2nd ed. (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1995), pp. 136-145.

[4] http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis3.html accessed 07-15-2007.

Health of the Church - Liberalism and Hugh Ross

In the introduction to this section, CAT makes the claim: “[YEC] are rightly concerned for the long-term health of the Church”[1]. This is a very interesting claim in the light of the thousands and millions of people who claim to come to faith in Christ because of the efforts of RTB in searching for the harmony between scriptures and the record of nature. This is particularly true of scientists and intellects- groups that YEC have found to be unreachable with their teachings. Those who were already Christians, because of teaching like those of Hugh Ross, they are now able to worship and love God with ALL their mind, heart and soul. Something YEC teachings were incapable to proving (see our bios). The arguments presented here in CAT are base on the common YEC equation:

An Old Earth = Darwinism = Naturalism = Evolution

This all too common YEC claim is address best by RTB [2].

RE: Path of Confusion
The claim here is that many Christians, once they have embraced the RTB creation model, have found themselves sliding down the slippery slope of liberal exegesis. If anything, the opposite is generally true, as many claim to some to faith because of RTB. a step in the right direction. I personally, find it is YEC dogma and insistence that my OEC interpretations of both the record of nature and scripture are heretical to be my greatest source of doubt and confusion.

RE: Damage in the Church
Yes, there claims are one of the few I have seen in CAT that rings true. Churches and institutions that embraced Darwinism over the Bible have indeed traveled the slippery slope of Biblical liberalism, but to level this charge against Hugh Ross and RTB is again using the fallacious equation:

OEC = An Old Earth = Darwinism = Naturalism = Evolution

Again, this all too common YEC claim is address best by RTB [2].

RE: Schools and Seminaries
CAT levels the claim that: “Because many church authorities have accepted the millions-of-years-of-death-before-Adam scenario, most Christian schools and seminaries have failed to teach the overwhelming evidence for fiat creation and opposing evolution." Remember the very purpose of this book is to thwart the teachings of Hugh Ross. Even a casual reading of RTB material would show that this claim is not at all applicable. In fact, RTB has a larger cache of evidence for divine design on the part of the God of the Bible, BECAUSE RTB uses mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific research as a pillar for its case (first pillar being scriptures). As an interesting aside, I have seen YEC point to the Cambrian Explosion [3] as evidence against Darwinism (which it is) but out the other side of the mouth, reject the geological evidence for the existence of the event (see [4] for an example).

RE: Next Generation of Leaders
If there is really an alarming percentage of next generation pastors, and lay-leaders accepting that evolutionary theory and Christianity are compatible, they are not this from Hugh Ross, RTB or OEC in general. If anything, I would submit they are “settling” for such a compromise because YEC models are incapable to holding up to the weight of evidence against them in the record of nature.

RE: Increasing Liberalism
If seminaries that are open death existing MYA before the fall are indeed moving to liberalism, it is because they are embracing evolution and not a creation model such as the one being developed and passing the rigors of scientists and theologians like the RTB creation model.

As a final note, CAT makes the statement: “Not only are people losing faith in the Bible’s accuracy, but the truth of the gospel message is being lost!” This claim is base on the YEC tenant that animal death before the fall undermines the atonement. This error and leap of logic has been address in previous postings (look for the label "death(animal)". But the basic problem is not making the distinction that Christ died for humanities sins and not animals sins (which they are not capable of). In other words, Jesus did not die for your puppy.

Final Observation:
As a final observation, I find it interesting that this book (CAT) and many YEC organizations spend much of their time and resources directed at Dr. Hugh Ross. Dr. Ross is constantly singled out in these criticism (or attacks) but not other Old Earth Creationists. Not their organizations. Not even Reasons to Believe. Not even the other scientists and theologians on staff at RTB- just Hugh Ross.

Footnotes
[1] CAT pg 23
[2] See RTB website http://www.reasons.org/about/8_myths_about_rtb.shtml (accessed 7.8.2007)
[3] Cambrian explosion" refers to the period- about 530 MYA- when the earth was changed from nothing in animal life forms to more advanced, wormlike organisms to a diversity encompassing all the major animal groups. All thirty of the more complex animal phyla alive today (including our own, the chordates) and thirty other phyla now extinct suddenly, in geologic terms, appeared in the Cambrian era.
[4] http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/kids.asp (accessed 7.14.2007)

The Purpose of Death - Part 7 - Wrapping this up

Summarizing on the purpose of death.

• Both YEC and OEC camps believe that human death was the result of the fall.
• Animal death has been shown to be beneficial in transforming the life on the planet, and even beneficial to the entire ecosystem.
• There is a lot more to death than simply the punishment of Adam's and mankind's sin.
• Sin and evil do in fact come as a result of free will decisions from fallen man.
• God is sovereign over all things including evil.
• Death for the Christian is a glorious thing - there is no sting.

CAT claims that the real purpose in death shows that the notion of the age of the earth is not a trivial matter. Yet we have seen that the camps are not really that far off - with the exception of the timing of animal death. We have seen that millions of years of animal death has nothing to do with the atonement.

Death is not a trivial matter. Thousands go to their grave every day to spend an endless eternity in hell. If you are someone that has been considering Christianity, but a notion of a young earth is holding you back - please don't let this be a stumbling block.


You dont have to be a statistic.

• Have you ever told a lie?
• Have you ever stolen anything?
• Have you ever looked at someone with lustful thoughts?
• Have you ever used "Jesus" "Christ" or "God" as a curse word?

These are all elements of the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are God's standard for behavior. If God were to judge you by these standards on judgement day, would you be innocent or guilty? Don't be hasty. Don't assume God will let you go by.

Think in terms of a human judge. If there were a criminal that was sentenced to $5,000,000 fine - what would you think of a judge that would just let the guilty man go free becuase he said something like, "Judge - I know you are a very good person, and I've done a lot of good things in my life, and I promise to never do it again?" If the judge let this man go - you would be indignant! That would not be a just judge.

Likewise, God can not look upon sin. However the GOOD NEWS is that (in terms of this analogy) someone has come to the judge and paid your fine. His name is Jesus - and He came to earth and became a man - God became flesh - and dwelled among us. He lived a sinless life and He was crucified and He laid down His life to satisfy the wrath of God. If you will put your faith in Jesus and this work for you, and repent and turn from your sin, He will forgive you and you need not fear the wrath of God for your sin.

Dont let this day go by without getting quiet before God and reflecting on your grave situation. Pray to God and tell Him from your heart that you need him. For more information on God and your need for him - please visit needgod.com.

The Purpose of Death – Part 6 - The Problem of Evil and a Sovereign God

In this section, it’s my intention to present another solution to the problem of evil (theodicy). I realize that the question of free-will vs. sovereignty and the Arminian and Calvinist debate has raged for centuries. Not everyone is going to agree with this position – but I want to present what I believe.

Another point to note is that CAT does not specifically dive into the free will issues with the problem of evil – however since this is a natural outflow to their argument of “God didn’t make it that way,” we are therefore visiting this topic now.

Note that the ideas presented here came largely from Matt Slick and several episodes from his Faith and Reason Radio show. (http://www.carm.org/radio/radio.htm) as well as a very excellent article by Gary Crampton hosted on the LEADERU web site.

Previously, we reviewed the free will theodicy argument that states that God did not create things the way we see them today and that man actualized his evil potential. Further we saw that the other position sees free will as only being effective if we have the potential for both good and evil.

My disagreement with this approach is in the nature of free will and not in the notion of free will itself. Many times Arminians (and other libertarians) object to Calvinism because they think that we reject free will. That is not the case. We would affirm that mankind has a free will – we just would differ from the libertarian as to the nature of that free will.

The problem with the Arminian theodicy is that it stops short in its explanation of evil. It rightly says that God did not create the world with human sin. It rightly states that things have not always been like we see them today. It even rightly states that free will choices account for evil. Yet it does not answer why God would allow evil.

The Calvinist position is described in section 3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith as it comments on the eternal decrees of God:

3.1 God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

1) Eph 1:1-11 says that God works all things after the counsel of His will.
That is ALL things – both what we would term good and evil.

2) Does God predestine that bad things will happen? Or put another way, Does God predestine that sin occurs?

3) To answer this we must look at the two wills of God. Within God’s eternal will and knowledge, there is a decretive will (God’s decrees) and His permissive (perceptive) will. Some things God decrees, some things God permits.

4) As an example of a decretive will: 1) the creation of the world, 2) the crucifixion of Christ. God directly decrees these things because He directly wants this to happen. There is no stopping the decretive will of God.

5) God’s permissive will is when he permits things to occur – like sin, evil, murder, mayhem…

6) Now if God permits something that is evil, the He is willing that it occur – He is allowing it because it is within His will for it to occur. (not to mention God’s exhaustive foreknowledge of what will happen)

7) Summary – within God’s will he ordains certain things specifically and allows certain things to happen (passively) but both of them are by His desire to let them occur. So does God ordain bad things to happen? Does God ordain sin? The answer is yes.

8) As an example, let’s look at Acts 4:27-28

27for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,28to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (ESV)

This does not mean that He looked into the future to see what was going to occur and then predestined that – that would be illogical. If God looks through the corridor of time and finds that something takes place and says, “Wala – I think such and such should take place,” it’s a mockery of God to call that predestination. It doesn’t follow.

Herod, Pilate, the romans, and the people of Israel all acted on their free will and yet we find that their free will choices brought forth exactly what God had planned from the beginning of time.

God foreknew, even foreordained, the crucifixion of His Son by the hands of sinful men. The godless men who carried out the act are responsible for their sin (Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28). Could they have done differently? Could Judas Iscariot not have betrayed Jesus Christ? To ask the questions is to answer them. Christian theology does not deny that Adam (and all men after him, for that matter) had a "free will" in the sense of "free moral agency." Men are not rocks or machines. All men think and choose in this sense of the term; otherwise, they could not act. Men choose to do what they want to think and to do; in fact, they could do no other than choose. What Christian theology does deny is that man has the "freedom of indifference." His ability to choose is always governed by factors: his own intellections, habits, and so forth. All his choices are determined by the eternal decrees of God. [4]

9) So God ordains what occurs – he allows or plans things to occur.

10) Now we take that a step further. God can also plan for an allowance. Since He knows all things, He can plan to allow something. Then we say in this sense that He is decreeing it or ordaining that thing in which he plans to allow.

11) Does God cause evil to occur directly? NO. Thus the Westminster Confession states: “yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin.[2]” God is Holy Perfect Pure – he does not create and bring into existence evil directly.

12) But, God can ordain for something to exist – by arranging the circumstances so that it will exist or come to pass – yet it is not God that directly performs or forces evil.

13) Some would say that if God works behind the scenes to allow things to happen, then is God not doing the sin/evil directly? No. Let’s use an analogy to help flesh this out.

14) Let’s suppose that I were to take my son and put before him on the table a bowl of ice cream on the left, and a bowl of worms, grubs, compost, and manure on the right. At that moment in time, my son has a choice in what dish he will partake of. However its pretty clear which one he is going to choose. I know my son, and he is not one that would cherish manure mouth. In this instance, he is going to choose the dish that most closely adheres to his desires at the time. Ice cream it will be.

This brings us to a more Biblically based definition of free-will. Calvinists believe that man’s will is enslaved in sin and totally and completely impacted by sin. Free will is defined as acting in accordance with the strongest desire at a given point in time and acting thus in accordance with our nature.

So in the analogy, by arranging the circumstances in the way I did, I am in essence ordaining what my son will choose. Then he makes a freewill choice to do what I want him to do.

15) Does this lesson in any way his free will choice? Absolutely not – he still has a choice. Does this mean that I was the author of him eating the ice cream? No he ate it not me. Can it be said that because I knew which one he would choose, that his choice was none the less a real choice? No – it was a real free will choice. It’s just that it was NOT a libertarian choice apart from any external influence.

16) Thus God is able to work things and bring things about where he allows it to happen and can ordain it to happen, but he is not the author of it. This is the source of the Westminster Confession statement “nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures”

17) Now all analogies break down at some point, and we can not compare my knowledge of my sons likes and dislikes to the exhaustive knowledge of God. Nonetheless it illustrates a different type of free will in man, and illustrates how man’s free will actions are compatible with the ordaining decrees of God.

18) The Westminster Confession continues with, “nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

God, says the Confession, is the sovereign first cause of all things, many of which occur through the free acts of man. Man is free from the control of molecules in his brain, but not from the decrees of God. The end that is decreed by God must never be separated from the means that He has also decreed, as second causes. God, wrote Clark, "does not arrange things or control history apart from second causes.... God does not decree [the end] apart from the means. He decrees that the end shall be accomplished by means of the means."[5]

This is the reason, according to the Confession, that God is not to be considered "the author or approver of sin." God is the sovereign first cause of sin, but He is not the author of sin. Only creatures can commit and do commit sin.[6]

19) As a final point, there are certain aspects of God’s character that can only be seen in the presence of evil. God’s wrath is poured out on sinners. If there were no sin and no evil, God would have nothing to pour his wrath on – and thus we would not see that portion of His character. God’s amazing grace is a grace that SAVES us from sin. If there were no sin or evil, we would not need saving. We would not need a savior. And if God were never to reveal His wrath, His mercy would not be so amazing.

So as a summary – here is a consistent and biblical theodicy.

God is the first cause of all things. He ordains sinful actions by men to further His plan. Sin and evil exist for pure and holy reasons and they are part of God’s plan. They work for and towards the furtherance of God’s glory and they ultimately are turned to the good of God’s people (even though such a turn be contrary to the one doing the sin/evil).

Gary summarizes his article like this:

It seems, then, that this … view of the purpose of creation is in agreement with a number of the Puritans who referred to the Genesis 3 event as "the fortunate Fall." Not only is the only logically consistent universe one in which evil exists for God's purposes, but God's people will be far more blessed because of the incarnation and Christ than they could ever have been blessed by an obedient Adam. [7]

Notes:

[1][2][3] are from the scripture proofs from the Westminster Confession of Faith –
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

[1] EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! HEB 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. ROM 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

[2] JAM 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 1JO 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

[3] ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. MAT 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. ACT 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. JOH 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. PRO 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.

[4] W. Gary Crampton in A Biblical Theodicy - http://www.leaderu.com/theology/theodicy.html (accessed 7/9/2007)

[5] Ibid. quoting Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe? (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956, 1965), 38.

[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.

The Purpose of Death - Part 5 - The Problem of Evil and Free Will

By tackling the problem of evil – we have somewhat strayed from our original intent of discussing the age of the earth. However, since CAT has taken us down this path, we are simply following their lead.

The first approach to the problem of evil focuses on the libertarian free will of man. It is an approach that would be characterized as Arminian [1] in its outlook. Hank Hanegraaff (the Bible Answer Man) uses this approach along with many other evidential apologists, as well as the authors of CAT. The key is a dual appeal to 1) the original creation being different than today, and 2) appealing to the notion that God created with the potentiality of evil – and that man actualized that evil by his free will choice – not God.

They [non-Christians and/or PC] fail to see that God created a perfect world, a world free from death. (CAT-19)

Essentially, this boils down to a perfect paradise until the Fall. Then death, disease, carnivorous activity and every other spiritual and natural evil entered into creation.

There is some merit to this approach. YEC and OEC agree that the Fall had an impact on creation. We do not agree that animal death was a result of the fall, but we agree that the introduction of sin into humanity had negative consequences to nature, animals, and the environment. This would primarily be based on the effects of sinful humans on their surroundings.

This approach further narrows in on the Fall and in particular the libertarian free will of man. It should be noted that CAT does not mention free will in its discussion since it is focused mainly on the purpose of death. However, we must address this since it’s an integral part of this approach to the problem of evil.

The approach claims that God created Adam with a potential for evil. It was Adam (and Eve) that actualized that evil and brought about the devastating consequences from the fall. Free will actions of men continue to this day and this is the cause of evil in our world today. This argument is best exemplified by Greg Koukl in this article Stand to Reason Sixty Second Theodicy [2].

Here is the essential quote from the article answering how could a good God and a powerful God allow evil in the world?

First point: "Would you like to see laws prohibiting a person from choosing an abortion?" Keep in mind that I am presuming that I'm speaking to a non-Christian who is fairly liberal and this is the last thing they want. If they happen to be pro-life, I could change the question to "Would you like to see laws passed prohibiting premarital sex?" Or "prohibiting homosexual behavior?" Now I suspect that when I ask them if they want to have laws passed on any of those things, they would say "no". My question, "Why?" And their answer is going to be, "Because I think people ought to be allowed to choose." Now there's the key. If you ask a question that beckons the response that people ought to be allowed to choose between moral alternatives, that's the whole key.

Second point: "So, it's a good thing that you have freedom to make moral choices, is that right?" "Yes, of course."

Third point: "Would it be fair to say that it's part of the nature of moral freedom to be possible to choose either good or evil? In other words, how can you say you are morally free if you can only choose good? You say it's a good thing to have moral choices and that entails that one can choose either good or evil, correct?" "Yes."

Last point: "Can raw power make it possible to have genuine moral freedom, but no possibility of doing evil?" The answer there is "No." Having genuine moral freedom entails the notion that you might choose evil, as we just said. And being strong can't change that. You can have all the power in the entire universe and you can't create a being who has moral freedom and at the same time has only one thing he can choose: good things, not bad things. Moral freedom requires that a person be capable of choosing evil and having moral freedom is a good thing.

That was the fourth question and here's how it comes together. Moral freedom requires that we can freely choose either good or evil; therefore, the possibility of choosing evil is a good thing, because moral freedom is a good thing. The fact that evil is possible is a good thing. Do you see that? Evil isn't good; but the fact that it's possible is a good thing because it means that you have genuine moral freedom.

Let's get back to our original question. A good God would want to remove the possibility of evil. False. Based on our little discussion we just had, a really good God
would make evil possible…. What about the second point? If He was powerful enough, He would get rid of evil. But how does having more power allow God to have a world of true moral choices where the only choice is to do good? Do you see that is contradictory? [2]

Here we see the first approach to theodicy – by appeal to free will. Some theologians, like Hank Hanegraaff narrow the focus more to something called libertarian free will. Libertarian free will is defined as:

Freedom as understood in the libertarian sense means that a person is fully able to perform some other action in place of the one that is actually done, and this is not predetermined by any prior circumstances, our desires or even our affections. In other words, our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature. All free will theists hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called our decision or free choice. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. [3]

The free will theodicy accounts for evil in our world from Adam until the present. The approach is biblically based and it tries to honor God. It is not a heretical view and neither is Arminianism. However, it does not really answer the problem. You see this really only redirects the question a little. It deflects the question from God to man - but it does not account for God's purpose in evil (if there is one) Be prepared for a come back which would go something like this:

OK, fine, but if God made things the way he did, and he knew that man would choose to reject him causing all this evil and suffering, and yet he created things like this anyway – then you still have not answered the problem – if God could have avoided evil but didn’t then why call him God. [4]

If you are an open-theist then your answer is that God didn’t know exactly what would happen. Open Theism asserts that God does not exhaustively know the future and He is in the process of learning [5]. Orthodox Christianity rejects open-theism as heresy.

Gary Crampton summarizes this point well:

Arminianism... fails to give us a solution. Arminian theologians attribute the origin of evil to the free will of man, rather than the will of God, positing a dualism of sorts. In his freedom, Adam chose to sin, apart from God's sovereign will. Adam had a "liberty of indifference" to the will of God. God "merely permitted" man to sin. The idea, however, of God's "permitting" man to sin does not solve the problem. Clark explained: "Somehow the idea of God¹s permitting evil without decreeing it seems to absolve God from the charge that He is the author of sin, but one must be careful, both with respect to the logic of the argument and to the full Scriptural data. God permitted Satan to afflict Job; but since Satan could not have done so without God's approval, the idea of permission hardly exonerates God. Is perfect holiness any more compatible with approving or permitting Satanic evil? If God could have prevented, not only Job's trials, but all the other sins and temptations to which mankind is subject—if He foresaw them and decided to let them occur--is He less reprehensible [on this view] than if He positively decreed them? If a man could save a baby from a burning house, but decided to permit the baby to burn, who would dare say that he was morally perfect in so deciding?"[6]

I (TODDL) do not agree with the concept of a libertarian free will theodicy. We will spend the next installment looking into the Calvinist solution that God is the first cause of all things and the He ordains everything that comes to pass – even evil – for the purpose of the fullness of His glory.

Notes:
[1] By claiming this approach is Arminian, we are not suggesting that this rules out the fact that there are YEC and OEC in both Calvinist and Arminian camps. In general the answer to the question of evil stems from your outlook on God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom – which is one of the major disagreements in the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate.

[2] http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5629&printer_friendly=1
(accessed 7/6/2007)

[3] Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will. by John Hendryx
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/libertarian.html
(accessed 7/7/2007)

[4] the atheist rebel would not capitalize pronouns directed to God – so I did not do so in this quote of a hypothetical atheistic objector.

[5] An in-depth look at free will and open theism can be found at the CARM website (Matt Slick) Open Theism and Libertarian Free Will.
http://www.carm.org/open/free_will.htm (accessed 7/9/2007)

[6] W. Gary Crampton in A Biblical Theodicy - http://www.leaderu.com/theology/theodicy.html (accessed 7/9/2007)
quoting Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians (The Trinity Foundation, 1975, 1991), 156-157

The Purpose of Death - Part 4 - The Problem of Evil

We have previously seen that God has a fuller purpose in death than just the judgment of sin. We have also seen that YEC and OEC are really not that far off in their models. We move now to the problem of evil. When reading this section of CAT – we can not help but see the authors trying to make a link between death and evil.

Why did God send physical death to the world He gave Adam to rule? Many people are frightened of death. Most non-Christians look at the suffering and death in our world and conclude that God must not really be good or loving or even all-powerful. Why would God create a world filled with suffering and death? (CAT-19)

We see here a hint of equating death and evil in the first phrase of the section,

“Why did God send physical death to the world…?" We pause here in agreement with the CAT authors. They basically recognize correctly that God was the cause. We are going to differ on the question of WHEN God sent or allowed physical death, but let’s start from the point of agreement - God is the ultimate cause.

Then we have the language of "many people are frightened by death" and the classical non-Christian objection to a good, loving, all-powerful God. In this we see the continued equating that death is a bad thing (evil). By equating death and evil – what we really find here is just a modified version of the classic question of a good God and His relation to suffering, evil, and death. The reconciling of these two entities (God/evil) is called THEODICY in theological terms.

Epicurus (341BC to 270BC see picture above) is generally credited with being the first to lay out the problem of evil. (see here for more information) His riddle is thus:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing then why call Him God?

Atheists think that this is a compelling argument. They fail to see that they have borrowed from the Christian worldview to even account for the dilemma. This is because atheism can not account for morality or the laws of logic – yet this dilemma assumes the evil is something that can be quantified. Without morality you can not define what is evil. This is a subject for another time – that is presuppositional apologetics and the argument of the absurdity of the contrary.[1]
However, ignoring this for now – atheists often try to stump the Christian with the problem of evil, and to the unlearned Christian, it can often be a stumper. There are valid responses to this dilemma – some better than others. The answer to the problem of evil is generally answered in two ways.

CAT and many evidential apologists rely on pointing out that God did not really create things the way we see them today. This is generally the answer given by Arminian based apologetics that rely on the (libertarian) free will choices of man.

A better and fuller answer comes from the Calvinistic perspective and that is that God is sovereign over everything - even evil actions - and that He has a purpose and a plan that He is working out in time for His own glory. We will look at these approaches more closely in the entries that follow.

Notes:

[1] The issue of atheism and its failure to account for logic and morality is basically set forth in the apologetic method known as Presuppositional Apologetics. For an in-depth audio primer on this topic I recommend Gene Cook and The Narrow Mind radio show at unchainedradio.com. In particular – please look for the 9 part series on Presuppositional Apologetics. See http://tnma.blogspot.com/search/label/Apologetics

Trust in God’s Word

The basic argument utilized by many YEC is something like:

“Our interpretation of Genesis is the only literal interpretation. Genesis is true. So our interpretation is correct”

This is just not a good or convincing reasoning able to persuade anyone outside 3rd grade playgrounds. I am reminded of A. A. Milne’s “Winnie the Pooh” where Pooh uses the following reasoning: “[This is true] or my name isn’t ‘Winnie the Pooh’! Which it is, of course, so there you are”.

RE: WRONG ALL ALONG?
CAT makes the (sarcastic) claim regarding YEC points:

"[PC] contradicts all of these beliefs, and claims it has finally discovered how to correctly interpret Genesis- after thousands of years of misunderstanding… If that is true, then one wonders what else Christians have seriously misunderstood” [1].

There are many claims made “based on the Bible” by Christians throughout the ages that have to been flat out wrong. The short list is:

1. Eternal security- Some Christians have studied the Bible say that one cannot lose their salvation others claim that one can. They both cannot be right.
2. Millennialism vs. Amillennialism – Is there a literal Kingdom to some or is the Church the fulfillment of the Kingdom- both conclusions reached by serious Bible scholars but they both cannot be right.

The example I wish to highlight is modern Israel. For over a thousand years, the vast majority of Christian, looking at the state of world Jewry and the Diaspora in their days, interpreted passages that speak of a restored Israel as being impossible [2]. They claimed that such passages must really mean the Church and declared these as being the “orthodox” and “literal” view. I would submit that 1947 proved them all wrong, yet such interpretations still prevail today. Therefore, it is possible for the “majority of Christians” to be wrong in interpreting the Bible. If something major like God’s promise to the Jews (starting at Genesis 12 and going on until Revelation 22) can be misunderstood by “Literalist-Christians”; how much easier is it for Christians to get something as small as one chapter of Genesis wrong? While Christians do have a corner on the market of truth claims, that does not mean that Christians are always right!

RE: Genesis is Trustworthy

The claim here is- if Genesis cannot be trusted as “literally” true, how can one trust the rest of the Bible? I feel that I have already made a case in the pervious section, but let me just remind us that it is not a question of Genesis being reliable, but which INTERPRETATION of Genesis is reliable- 24 hours days, day-age, myth, etc. [3]

RE: Jesus Trusted Genesis

The claim made in CAT is that Jesus trusted the Book of Genesis because He quoted from it. Jesus’ citations of Genesis had nothing to do with interpretation of the lengths of the “days” of Genesis. CAT goes on to claim that since “God is not a God of deception” then it must be that each of the Genesis 1 “days” = “24 hours periods”. But God also tells us that people are without excuse in knowing that there is a God because of the calling card he has left with the record of nature (Psalm 19:1 and Roman 1:20). If YEC interpret Genesis correctly, then how can people be “without excuse” when all the disciplines of science, since it has examined creation for the answer to its age, independently and consistently come up with the answer that the earth is older than 6000-50,000 years? The OEC view is that there is no deception in either the Scriptures or Creation. Both are revelations form God and reliable, but both are also subjected to misinterpretation.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] CAT pg 23

[2] Ezekiel 37 is a prime example.

[3] For a good treatment of the issue of “literal” interpretation of “day” see: http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml#creedal and http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html (accessed 7.6.2007)

Animal Death

This post will address some of the claims made in CAT regarding the Fall and its impact on animal death and human longevity.

RE: PAUL UNDERSTOOD
CAT cites Romans 8:19-21 to support the argument that the curse of Adam’s sin affected all nature. It is true that all of nature is impacted by Adam’s sin but that does not require that animal death be introduced at that point [1]. Most OEC submit that the fall has affected nature in the sense that humanity is no longer the “very good” caretaker. Obvious examples are pollution, unnecessary killing of animals, and the destruction of habitat, to name a few. The introduction of animal death is not the only way to read Romans 8:19-21. A good treatment of this can be found in reference [2].

But CAT goes on to make this most curious comment, “All creation will rejoice when paradise is returned to its Creator” [1]. This is very common YEC assertion that has little to no biblical basis. In fact, it is in direct contradiction to the promises of Scriptures because Eden will not be restored. This is most evident when one considers a literal interpretation of Revelation 21-22 where John writes that this creation will all be replaced by a new and truly perfect creation- the New Heavens and the New Earth- where there is no pain a suffering unlike Eden [3].

RE: VEGETARIAN “CARNIVORES,” ORIGINALLY AND IN THE END
Many OEC and RTB contend that before and after the fall, humans were indeed to eat plants and not meat. But this has nothing to do with any lack of animal death before the fall. But more to do with human life spans. The Bible is very clear that humans lived very long life spans before the time of Abraham. Best we can tell, God had humanity eat vegetables because with human longevity reaching 900 years. Consumption of meat of such lifespan would introduce large amounts of metals and other toxins. Such metals and toxins have little impact on people should their life expectancy be 120 years or less- in fact they can be beneficial, but much longer than this, these metals would hinder the lifespan of peoples. A much more technical treatment of this topic can be found in reference [4].

Concerning the YEC aversion to animals eating other animals, God seems to have little problem with this as seen in the Creation passage of Psalm 104:20-21- “You bring darkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest prowl. The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God.” Here we learn that meat-eaters get their meat meals from God.

RE: MAN ALSO HARMLESS TO ANIMALS
Regarding human consumption of meat, I have already addressed, but the prohibition of the human consumption of meat until Genesis 9 does not mean that humans did not or were incapable of eating meats physiologically before the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9).

RE: LATER FEAR OF MAN
According to CAT “It was not until after the Flood that animals became wary and even terrified of humans.” [1] This claim is made on the basis of Genesis 9:2-3. CAT goes on to call this a “reasonable assumption” that animals were originally created friendly and trusting of man. That does not mean that all animals before the Flood were nice, nice and buddy, buddy with humans. It is more likely that the animals on the ark (the only animals in the area at the time post-Flood) were not afraid of Noah and his family as they were taken care of and feed by them for a long period of time. It is just (if not more) reasonable to assume that God removed the fear of humans from the individual animals that came to the ark. One reason for God to do such as thing would be to ease Noah’s burden in herding, loading, and caring for them. If this were the case, then once the ark animals were released to the wild, God again restored this “flight” instinct.

RE: GRAVEYARD CAME AFTER SIN AND THE FLOOD
CAT makes an interesting claim on page 21, that “it is clear that Adam and Eve were created in a paradise, not a graveyard of dead animals”. Actually, the clear reading of Scriptures show that Adam was created before there was even an Eden. God took the already created man and placed him in this newly created paradise (Genesis 2 with emphasis on verses 8 and 15). CAT goes on to say, again page 21, “There are volumes of excellent evidence [that all evidence of animal death in the form of fossils are a result of the Noahic flood]". Well, yes there is indeed volumes written on this thesis- but none of it is scientifically credible. Addressing the mountain of evidence against this notion is beyond the scope this is entry [5].

RE: THE JOYFUL HOPE OF CHRISTIANS
CAT makes the claim that “THE joyful hope of Christians… [will be that] one day Christ will restore the animals to being vegetarians again. Peace will once again reign” (Emphasis mine) [6]. No, -the- joyful hope of Christians is NOT that all animals will be at a “salad bar”, but that we will be with Him forever- first in reigning with Him in the Messianic Kingdom, then in the New Heavens, the New Earth, and New Jerusalem [7]. Peace will come not because animals will all be vegi-saurs, but because Satan and evil will be defeated and it will be HE that will do the reigning and not "peace" [8].

FOOTNOTES:
[1] CAT pg 20.
[2] http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/romans8.html accessed 6.30.2007
[3] Genesis 3:16- as part of the curse on humanity God tells Eve that her pain will be INCREASED in childbearing. Obviously, there was some pain before the Fall.
[4] http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml#long_life_spans (accessed 6.20.2007)
[5] A good one stop place to start would be: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html#FloodGeo (accessed 7.6.2007)
[6] CAT pg 21.
[7] Revelation 20:1-6, 21-22.
[8] Revelation 19-22.

The Purpose of Death part 3 – Human Death After the Fall

Most view death as a bad thing. Death is an enemy that will some day be destroyed. However there is more to death than just the judgment from God of sin. It is likely that YEC will not object to these reasons for death since this is a post-Fall discussion – however it’s important to realize that death – even though it is an enemy – is used by God for multiple reasons and ultimately brings Him glory.

Death is Universal - with some exceptions
The running joke is that you can’t escape the IRS and death... So unless you are translated by God (like Enoch and Elijah) or you are alive at the 2nd coming of the Lord - you are going to die. Period. End of story.

Life shuns death.
God has put in each of us a drive for life. The maintenance of life is a key fundamental of being alive. If something threatens our life (say rapid internal bleeding and blood loss) our brains instantly shut down non essential portions of our bodies - even consciousness - in a drive to survive.

We don’t want to die
Even a true Christian convert - who has assurance of salvation and glorification - does not in general wish for death. The drive for life mentioned earlier prevails. Even the apostle Paul stated, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Phil 1:21) Paul realizes that Christ was with him in life, but to die would be better (gain) - yet he concluded that it was more important for him to stay around for the sake of his children in the Lord when he stated, "nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." (Phil 1:24) As a Christian, there is no fear in death, but does not mean that we would purposely hasten death.

Death limits the evil potential of man
God reduced human life expectancy from around 900 years down to 120 years after the flood. "... Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." (Gen 6:3) One reason for this is to limit the amount of damage that sinful men could do to each other. Note that God noted that in the days of Noah that all flesh was continually doing evil. Violence was at astronomical levels. Imagine the amount of pain and suffering that a rebellious sinner can do if he were to live to the age of 900. One caveat to this point is that God knows, controls, sustains, allows, and oversees everything that comes to pass. There are no contingencies, no what ifs. So in a way this is a theoretical usage of death - yet in God's sovereign control of our world, he has used death to be a limiting influence (a restraint of evil) in our day.

Death is a catalyst for the contemplation of eternity
How many people do we know that have been drawn to the Kingdom of God through the death of a loved one? When someone close dies, it spawns thoughts of eternity and God many times uses this - along with other seeds of the Gospel - to bring a sinner to repentance and salvation.

Death is a doorway to eternity
First comes death - then the judgement. [3] Once we die, our eternal state is fixed. The elect are saved from the foundation of the world. The Calvinist-Arminian debate asks the question of how the elect are determined - either by means of God's foreknowledge of some future human event, or by means of the will and praise of the Glory of God. Yet both sides agree that when you die, your eternal state is fixed. It is the story of the sheep and the goats. Christ said you are either for Him or against Him.

Death was punishment for sin
We agree with YEC that death was given as a punishment. We recognize that Adam spiritually died instantly upon eating the wrong fruit. He was instantly separated from God and it affected all of his progeny. Note that Adam did not die on the calendar day that he (with Eve) ate the wrong fruit. They died spiritually, but their natural death was not to be realized for many years to come. We agree that Jesus came to earth in the incarnation as a man, and that he died substitutionally for the elect and then was victorious over death.

All death will eventually be done away with
God has allowed animal and human death to play a part in His good and very good creation. We disagree in respect to the timing of the introduction of death to animals, but we both agree that death (both physical and spiritual) will one day be destroyed [2].


NOTES:

[1] Gen 3:22 (NKJV) Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

[2] 1Cor 15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.
1Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

[3] Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Purpose of Death Part 2 - Animal Death

We have not yet proved this, but if you will, assume for the moment that God created life billions of years ago. It is a fair question to ask why God would use the death of organisms and animals in his good and very good creation? The PC position is that the death of lower organisms over a roughly 4 billion year period of time was used by God to:

1. transform the earth into an environment fit for higher life forms
2. provide the natural resources that would be needed by humans
3. natural ecology
4. population control for herbivores and food for carnivores

Transforming the Earth
There were lots of changes that were needed in the transition from the primordial earth to the earth which supports advanced life. The faint sun paradox is probably the best example. It can be researched in full at this link:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#faint_sun

To summarize, the early earth’s sun was much hotter than it is now. As it aged it cooled. However as less and less heat is generated by the sun, the earth and its atmosphere needed to adjust in sync with the changes. It is postulated that God used photosynthetic plants, bacteria and methanogens (methane consuming bacteria) along with plate tectonics and volcanic activity to transform the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere to the exact amount needed at each epoch of time corresponding to the luminosity of the sun. Note this is a theory on how God may have done this – subject to further study, and we would not claim that this is absolutely without doubt the way God did this.

Providing Resources for Humanity
When bacteria and other small creatures died and were buried before being eaten by other creatures, they would take water, methane, and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and chemically transform them into fats, sugars, starches, proteins, and carbonates. When buried, they form a wealth of biodeposits such as limestone, marble, fossil fuels, and concentrated metal ores.

Natural Ecology, Population Control, and Food for Predators
Life and death and decay form an integral part of natural ecology at work. The food chain in a given ecosystem is fine-tuned for the optimal survival of the entire system. Take for example an isolated island with a group of herbivores but no predators. It would not take long for the island to be stripped bare of vegetation as an exponential growth in herbivore population occurs. Predation is essential to a lively ecology.

Dr. Ross summarizes this point well.

The timing of humanity’s arrival—near the end of life’s long tenure on Earth—may appear tragic at first glance. But a longer look suggests it may be viewed as a gift. Scanning the horizon of civilization—farms, ranches, towns, cities, and all the transportation and communication arteries linking them—one sees a plethora of building materials derived from nearly 4 billion years of life and death: gems, sand, steel, asphalt, concrete, copper, limestone, marble, plastics, etc. Most of the energy that drives civilization comes from biodeposits—oil, coal, wood, kerogen, natural gas, and so forth. Many of the fertilizers that support agricultural production also come from biodeposits—phosphates, nitrates, and such.

Such bountiful provisions powerfully indicate a Provider who carefully planned and prepared the planet through the ages for human life. They speak of a purpose for the human race. The Bible reveals a purpose that involves, yet goes beyond, the current “heavens and Earth.” [1]

In addition, stay tuned for a more detailed study in our section addressing the theological issues of animal earth.

Notes:
[1] http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#faint_sun

The Purpose of Death - Part 1 - The Models

The next section of the book continues with the list of reasons why the issue of the age of the earth is not a trivial pursuit based on the purpose of death. This is a very large topic and the responses will be spread out amongst the following topics:

Part 1 - The models
Part 2 - The purpose of animal death
Part 3 - The purpose of human death
Part 4 - The problem of evil
Part 5 - The problem of evil and free will
Part 6 - The problem of evil and a sovereign God

The purpose of death argument goes like this (summarized from CAT-19)

• Why did God send physical death to the world?
• Many people fear death, and non-Christians have a problem with evil and a good God.
• Why would God create a world filled with suffering and death?
• Answer - he didn’t - he created a perfect world free from death.
• Death was a judgment in response to man’s sin (rebellion against God)
• In love, Jesus died in our place and was victorious over death.
• If you adhere to any physical death prior to the Fall, then you undermine the atonement and the Gospel.

There are some problems with this presentation. We do not agree that God created the world from the beginning free from physical death, nor do we agree that all death was a result of sin. However we do affirm the simple Gospel message that Christ died and was victorious over death.

This blog has already shown in other entries that the original creation was not a perfect paradise. It was perfect, but it was so in light of the purpose and plan of the Creator. It is true that many people fear death. And it’s true that many non-Christians look at evil, suffering, death in the world and have questions about the nature of God that would allow these things. These are valid questions that need to be addressed - and we will address these Lord willing.

This argument is distilled into two competing models:

The (CAT) YEC model is this:

• all death was a result of sin
• the purpose of all death was God’s consequence for sin
• death spread to the entire creation
• death is an enemy
• Jesus died in our place and was victorious over death.
• Some day, all death will be destroyed

The OEC model is this:

• Pre-fall animal death occurred from the very beginning and served God’s morally pure purpose
• Human death (spiritual and physical) was a direct result of Adam’s sin.
• Human physical death was brought about primarily by the removal of access to the tree of life.
• Human spiritual death was brought about instantly in response to Adam’s sin.
• Death is an enemy.
• Jesus died in our place, and was victorious over both physical and spiritual death.
• Some day, all death will be destroyed

YEC often fail to distinguish between the two usages of death seen in the scriptures when applied to humans. The OEC model accounts for both types of death. The YEC model lumps them together. Even so, notice the point of agreement. The gospel message is essentially the same since we affirm that human death was a result of the fall. The agreement is this:

YEC: Animal and human death was the result of human sin.
OEC: ...........Human death was the result of human sin.

The only difference is that YEC take it a step further to say that ALL death was a result of sin. So at this point the argument is one of scope – but it is not one that impacts the atonement nor does it impact the glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ because we both agree with the base condition.

Now that we’ve looked at the models of death, the following blog entry on this topic will cover the purposes of animal death in our world today.

Notes:
[1] We will not attempt to solve the controversy over election. Whether Calvinistic, or Arminian, or you've never thought about it - Jesus ultimately died for His elect. And the election occurred at the beginning of time itself. Countless saints have wrestled with election - is it God looking through the corridors of time, or is it God's sovereign choice to the praise of His Glory?... We will leave this controversy for another time and another blog...

GENESIS IS FOUNDATIONAL

In the importance of Genesis to the body of books that make up the Christian Bible CAT claims: "More Bible writers quoted (or referred to) Genesis than any other book… Christianity was build upon its foundation." [1]

The claim that Genesis being most quoted is made in CAT with no basis or data to back it up (this feels like a shell-game). But assuming they are right, it is the passages from Genesis 12 and beyond that are more quoted than the pertinent chapters to the issue of the age of the earth (which most would agree are limited to Chapters 1-3 and 9).

The original title of the Book of Genesis, in the Hebrew, is “B’eresheet” which means “beginnings”. Indeed it is a book of beginnings. To name a few, the Book of Genesis documents the beginnings of:

1. the universe and earth (Gen. 1)
2. humanity (Gen. 1 and 2)
3. sin (Gen. 2 and 3)
4. spread of humanity and nations (Gen. 11).

But most importantly (with respect to volume and verse count) Genesis documents the beginning of the Jewish race (Gen. 12-50). A people God chose to set apart and as a testimony to the world [2]. I contend that this is the section of Genesis that is foundational to Christianity since it is the source of the Abrahamic Covenant [3]. It was this covenant that promised blessing to Gentiles from a coming Messiah and forms the basis for the New Covenant is promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which the Church resides under.

If it sounds like I am off topic it might be because the original claim of CAT has little to nothing to do with the issue of the age of the earth.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] CAT pg. 22
[2] Deu. 7:6-8
[3] Being sensitive to the original, Jewish perspective of both the Old and New Testament- see my bio on this blog.

Original Paradise (Part II)

Or did the perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful God of love create an imperfect Creation? The Bible certainly suggests that God's creations were fully developed, fully equipped, fully functional, free from disease or suffering. (CAT-17)
It can be concluded that God created man as a grown man - and Eve was formed from a biopsy from Adam's side and was created fully formed as an adult woman. It's probably safe to also assume that when God introduced a new creature that he created the "chicken and not the egg." However to extrapolate to all of creation and to suppose that all trees, plants, earth formations, solar system, etc. were all formed fully developed and equipped is to read something into the text. Free from disease or suffering? Where does the Bible say this? This is reading into the text an interpretation based on a base assumption. It is not gleaning an interpretation from the text.

God judged it all as "very good" (Genesis 1:31) Yes we agree - but note it God did not call it perfect. Perfection is yet to come in the new creation at the end of the age.

In contrast, PC claims that God created a world filled with frequent death, physical and emotional suffering, cruelties, extinctions, catastrophes, and so on, for millions of years.
Animal suffering and death as we will see in an upcoming post is not the same as human death. The death of insects and bacterial life can be distinguished from higher forms of life and especially human life. Cruelty? No, animals are not cruel - that is a product of sin - to arbitrarily cause pain without purpose. Extinctions? Catastrophes? The point is none of these diminish the glory of God in his creation. These things do not malign a perfect creation. (Note animal suffering and death will be covered in depth in an upcoming blog.)

According to PC, when wolves eat lambs and when bears kill baby sea lions, this is exactly the way things were meant to be by God. EXACTLY - and when the bear kills for food - it brings glory to God in that the bear is acting according to its nature. This is simply an appeal to emotion and is only trying to "poison the well"

Is this what we should be teaching our children? Truth is truth. If this is truth, then we should teach it.

If so, why has God never revealed this? God reveals himself in His word and in nature. We can use both of these revelations to arrive at our conclusions (this is left for chapter two - Dual Revelation)

And why does God refer to a blessed time in the future when the wolf will lie down with the lamb? The PC answer is that this will be a unique event never seen before. The end of carnivorous activity is a future perfection. That is a perfect creation - we will not have Eden restored, but will be upgraded to Heaven on earth.

Genesis provides a brief but tantalizing description of the wondrous paradise our Creator lovingly designed. Yes it was wondrous, but it was not perfect like heaven will be.

It was far unlike the pain-filled, sin-worn world of degeneration that we experience.
ABSOLUTELY - Before Adam sinned, things were different. While we say that animal death was experienced before the fall, it does not follow that PC believes that there was no impact of Adam's sin on creation. We can only look at the world through dim glasses - through the experience of sin. We look forward to a new heaven and new earth.

There is no biblical reason to believe that the pre-Fall world suffered catastrophes, diseases, parasites, plagues, degenerative mutations, damage of skin and eyes due to the sun's ultraviolet radiation, animals preying on man or animals, etc. Earth began as a paradise, not a world of travail. There is likewise no biblical reason to believe that everything was perfect as heaven will be. This is only (yet again) emotionally charged language trying to poison the well of our thinking so that we wont even think about the possibility of the contrary. We affirm that creation was perfect for the plan God intended, but we do not force our human based judgement of what we think good and very good means in interpreting Genesis.