Evoultion and creation are antithetical - discuss

[methinkshe]

Now we need to discuss imputation of sin. Before the Law was given, sin was not imputed. In Adam we inherit a sinful nature - one that is spiritually dead, incapable of communication with God. However, until the Law was given, personal sin was not imputed. Man was simply dead to God because of his inherited-from-Adam sinful nature. Man was made righteous through faith, as with Abraham - "And his faith was counted to him as righteousness".

I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion. Care to explain?

Yes, but physical death is a consequence of spiritual death. If you read the AV or a good translation from Hebrew, you will read "dying you will die" even if only in the margins. In other words, because you will die spiritually, you must die physically. But that wans't God's original intent.

Are you referring to Gen 2:17? If so, I don't think the Hebrew means that spiritual death requires physical death.

If death was already present then how can death be a consequence of sin? We read that "the wages of sin is death". If death preceded sin, then death is not the wages/penalty of sin. Like..death is just a nasty bug...or whatever. I am not disputing that God can do what He chooses, but God always operates within His own character - He is not capricious. Thus if God says that death is theconsequence of sin (which He does) then death cannot precede sin. Similarly, miscarriage cannot precede pregnancy. God is the author of reason and logic as well as the author of faith. He does not require that we have a logic/intellect bypass when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

The punishment of sin is more than mere physical death, for physical death can be a gateway to eternal life with God, which is no punishment. The true punishment of sin is separation from God. Even the righteous die physically. So, yes, sin precedes spiritual death. Rom 6:23 and the surrounding verses is contrasting death with eternal life; not physical death with physical life.

Restoration and salvation are different animals (excuse the pun). Yes, there is no doubt that the whole creation "groans" and awaits restoration. But there are also references to man's special spiritual place and authority over animals. Even to the point that we are abjured not to be like "brute beasts" (James, I think). There is a measure of authority and concommitant responsibility that is given to humans that is not given to animals.

And there is no reason that man's special status over animals cannot be maintained alongside evolution. Anyone, Christian or otherwise, realizes that only humans are religious and that man essentially controls nature.

May I ask you a question, Tubal-Cain? (BTW, the signinficance of your choice of handle has not escaped me). Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the once and for all atonement for sin, that through belief in in Him we not only receive forgiveness of sin but are also imputed the righteousness of Jesus Chrits such that we can stand before a Holy God without fear of condemnation?

Ruth

[Tubal-Cain]

May I ask you a question, Tubal-Cain? (BTW, the signinficance of your choice of handle has not escaped me). Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the once and for all atonement for sin, that through belief in in Him we not only receive forgiveness of sin but are also imputed the righteousness of Jesus Chrits such that we can stand before a Holy God without fear of condemnation?

I believe Jesus is the atonement for all sin but I have no opinion on whether Christ's righteousness is imputed on us or not.

[methinkshe]

May I ask you a question, Tubal-Cain? (BTW, the signinficance of your choice of handle has not escaped me). Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the once and for all atonement for sin, that through belief in in Him we not only receive forgiveness of sin but are also imputed the righteousness of Jesus Chrits such that we can stand before a Holy God without fear of condemnation?

I believe Jesus is the atonement for all sin but I have no opinion on whether Christ's righteousness is imputed on us or not.

Just wanted to let you know that I have not deserted this discussion - I just need some time to gather together the threads of my argument and present them coherently. The imputation of sin, and its corollary, the imputation of righteousness through Jesus Christ is essential to any argument about evolution v creation, imo. I am not talking about adaptation, BTW, I speak of evolution from a big bang, then microscopic organisms, then fish, etc etc right up to human life. Would you be kind enough to bear with me? It is quite easy to give instant answers but on this occasion I need to spend some time - I'm not a gifted teacher of the Word, nor a biological scientists, just a fairly ordinary housewife/mother.

In Christ jesus,

Ruth

[Tubal-Cain]

Take your time Ruth.

[methinkshe]

Hi, Tubal-Cain,

I hope that the following makes sense - I find that as I get older I find it harder and harder to construct good arguments - I don't seem to have the ability I once had to pull togther various trains of thought in a coherent manner.

Salvation makes no sense if death precedes sin. If humanity is the end result of a process of natural selection whereby through chance man has evolved from an amoeba through the random action of death (extinction) for the weakest, survival (continuity) for the fittest, then death is the arbiter of the existence of an Adamic ancestral representative of humanity, a man capable of choosing FOR or AGAINST God. This is to elevate death to a position that it is not accorded by Scripture. One could summarise and say that: by death came Adam, (the first intelligent human, if you like) if evolution were true. Thus, death becomes not only creative, it also becomes a reward - perpetuation of the species - get rid of the weaker/less well adapted so that the stronger/better adapted survive. Logically, if death is creative and a reward, then life must be destructive and a punishment. Reason is stood on its head.

The Bible says that through Adam sin entered the world, and through sin, death. Romans 5:12 "Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin and thus death spread to all men......" And, "the wages of sin is death." Adam's sinful nature was inherited by all men and with the coming of the law, his sin was imputed to all men. Therefore all men must die.

"....through one Man's righteous act, the free gift (eternal life) came to all men.." Romans 5:18. Through belief in Jesus Christ the believer is born again of the Spirit thus solving the problem of inherited sin, forgiven his sins, thus solving the problem of imputed sin, and imputed Christ's righteousness, thus making the believer acceptable to the Father who is absolute righteousness.

Thus, one man's (Adam's) sin, imputed to all, and for which the penalty is death, is trumped by one Man's (Jesus') righteousness, imputed to all who believe, for whom the reward is eternal life. Thus salvation is a perfect mirror image of the Fall.

Now if death precedes sin, judgement and punishment have preceded the crime, so to speak. The wages of sin (death) are imputed to all of humanity BEFORE the Fall and the giving of the law. (This is what evolution says). If this were the case then Salvation would require that eternal life (the reward of righteousness) should precede the atonement. Rightousness should be imputed before "the righteous act of one Man" (Jesus obedience to the Father through His death on the cross), and eternal life - the mirror of death - should precede the resurrection of Jesus. That makes a nonsense of Jesus' death, for if eternal life and imputed righteousness precede the atonement, why and for what did Jesus die on the cross?

In Christ Jesus,

Ruth

[Tubal-Cain]

Thus, death becomes not only creative, it also becomes a reward - perpetuation of the species - get rid of the weaker/less well adapted so that the stronger/better adapted survive.

But death is not what perpetuates a species, reproduction is what perpetuates a species. I think you have failed in depicting death as a reward.

Logically, if death is creative and a reward, then life must be destructive and a punishment.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Now if death precedes sin, judgement and punishment have preceded the crime, so to speak.

But since everyone sins before they die then the punishment is not before the crime. It is simply inevitable is it not?

If this were the case then Salvation would require that eternal life (the reward of righteousness) should precede the atonement.

Again, this conclusion is not required by the premise you laid out. Although it does lead one to ask whether anyone before Jesus' crucifixion had eternal life. If yes (which is my belief) then in some sense salvation did precede the atoning death of Christ. God knows His plans so I can understand why such righteousness could be imputed before Jesus' death (though I don't have any firm opinion on imputed sin or imputed righteousness).

[MorningGlory]

Thus, death becomes not only creative, it also becomes a reward - perpetuation of the species - get rid of the weaker/less well adapted so that the stronger/better adapted survive.

But death is not what perpetuates a species, reproduction is what perpetuates a species. I think you have failed in depicting death as a reward.

Logically, if death is creative and a reward, then life must be destructive and a punishment.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

I have to agree with Tubal Cain. There is no logic in the above statements in blue. At least none that I can grasp.

[methinkshe]

Tubal-Cain: But death is not what perpetuates a species, reproduction is what perpetuates a species. I think you have failed in depicting death as a reward.

My argument wasn't very good, I agree. I'll try again. Btw, I have only just realised that I incorrectly titled this thread. It should have read: Evolution and CHRISTIANITY are antithetical.... As it stands it is a statement of the obvious. I apologise for that mistake - careless of me.

Back to death.......

Let me quote Charles Darwin from the very last paragraph of "The Origin of Species".

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of the higher animals [i.e. man] directly follows."

If death is part of the creative process, then death is beneficial to continued existence and could therefore be described as the reward of living. Which, I agree, and previously stated, stands reason on its head. Not to mention intuition. I doubt there is anyone who doesn't agree that death is a scourge. But that's not what evolution says. According to Darwin, death is the creator of "the most exalted object we are capable of conceiving...."

I am not a logician so if my statement "if death is creative and a reward, then life must be destructive and a punishment" is false logic, I hold up my hands. I was dealing in simple opposites, that's all.

Tubal-Cain: But since everyone sins before they die then the punishment is not before the crime. It is simply inevitable is it not?

What about original sin or inherited sin? "As in Adam all die......" (1 Corinthians 15: 22) Has a 24 week old foetus sinned before it is ripped from its mother's womb and killed? The Bible teaches original sin, that mankind is conceived in sin and born with a sinful nature. He doesn't have to commit personal sin, Adam's sin is imputed to all men.

Tubal-Cain:

Again, this conclusion is not required by the premise you laid out. Although it does lead one to ask whether anyone before Jesus' crucifixion had eternal life. If yes (which is my belief) then in some sense salvation did precede the atoning death of Christ. God knows His plans so I can understand why such righteousness could be imputed before Jesus' death (though I don't have any firm opinion on imputed sin or imputed righteousness).

Forget it, then. Just where my personal thoughts led me. Far more important is this:

The Bible teaches that it was man's sin that brought death into the world, which in turn brought Jesus to pay the penalty in our place. The death of Christ was made necessary because of man's sin. If, however, it was not man's sin that brought death into the world (which is what evolution says) and death was just a natural occurrence and not the penalty for sin, then Jesus death cannot pay the penalty for sin.

Ruth

Edited April 20, 2007 by methinkshe

[Tubal-Cain]

The Bible teaches that it was man's sin that brought death into the world, which in turn brought Jesus to pay the penalty in our place. The death of Christ was made necessary because of man's sin. If, however, it was not man's sin that brought death into the world (which is what evolution says) and death was just a natural occurrence and not the penalty for sin, then Jesus death cannot pay the penalty for sin.

You are correct that the evolutionist believes that death preceded the first sin of man. However, I don't think you can make a logical argument that that fact necessitates the conclusion that Jesus' death cannot pay the penalty for sin. In other words, the mere fact that pre-human species died before any sin occurred cannot prevent God from raising the dead to eternal life.

[methinkshe]

The Bible teaches that it was man's sin that brought death into the world, which in turn brought Jesus to pay the penalty in our place. The death of Christ was made necessary because of man's sin. If, however, it was not man's sin that brought death into the world (which is what evolution says) and death was just a natural occurrence and not the penalty for sin, then Jesus death cannot pay the penalty for sin.

You are correct that the evolutionist believes that death preceded the first sin of man. However, I don't think you can make a logical argument that that fact necessitates the conclusion that Jesus' death cannot pay the penalty for sin. In other words, the mere fact that pre-human species died before any sin occurred cannot prevent God from raising the dead to eternal life.

If I commit a crime for which the penalty is 20 years imprisonment, and if it were allowed by society's rules for one man to serve the penalty due to another, then that redeemer, to meet the requirements of society's rules, would have to serve 20 years imprisonment on my behalf. But if the penalty for my crime was a fine of