Creation Vs. Theistic Evolution, Can We Do A Poll Of The Reformed?

[Cal]

Calvinist theology has stimulated some of the greatest history changing thought and artistic and literary achievements the world has ever seen. It stimualted glorifying God in music through Bach and Handel, in art through Rembrandt and Van Gogh, in Republican Govt through Calvin and the Puritans, in literature through Shakespeare and Milton, and in business through the Puritan work ethic and capitalism commonly credited to calvinism.

Therefore, I respect the opinion of calvinist's very much and I was wondering what calvinists believe about the orgin of life. Is it possible to start with this forum and do a poll of the "reformed only" as to whether the believe in creationism (young earth) of theistic evolution (old earth).

I'm not sure how to do those polls where you can just click and vote or who can do them but I thought it would be very interesting.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1st- as a matter of definitions
old earth creationists does not equal theistic evolution.

from: http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/week6.html

Spectrum of views on origins
Note: Many people don't fall into any one category below, but allow for some range of possibilities, and a mixture of scenarios.

1a. Ancient Near East Cosmology. A literal reading Genesis 1-2, and other Old Testmament passages, describes a flat earth with a solid-dome "firmament" above the sky holding back the "waters above the earth." This is how the Old-Testament-era Hebrews and surrounding cultures pictured the world.
1b. "Modern" Flat Earth. Genesis 1-2 and other scriptures are interpreted as requiring belief in a flat earth fixed in place, but words refering to the solid firmament and waters above the earth are interpreted differently than in Ancienct Near East cosmology.
1c. Geocentrism The earth is spherical, but Genesis 1-2 and other scriptures are interpreted as requiring the belief that the earth is fixed and doesn't move. The sun, moon, planets, and stars all move around the earth.

2a. Young Earth Creation: Appearance of Youth. The modern scientific (sun-centered) picture of the solar system is accepted, but the scientific picture of geological and biological history is disputed. Genesis 1-2 is interpreted as recent literal history; the earth and the universe are a few tens of thousands of years old. (References to the firmament and waters above the earth are interpreted in a variety of ways.) Although some "appearance of age" may have been included in creation (e.g. active stars, light from the stars "on its way" to earth), proper scientific measurements would yield ample evidence that the earth and life were recently created.
2b. Young Earth Creation: Created with Apparent Age. Genesis 1-2 is interpreted as recent literal history; the earth and the universe are a few tens of thousands of years old. However, the universe and the earth were made to "appear" several billion years old, so scientific measurements measure only apparent age, not actual age.
2c. Young Earth Creation: Apparent Age Due to the Fall. Genesis 1-2 is interpreted as recent literal history; the earth and the universe are a few tens of thousands of years old. However, due either to the fall of man or the fall of Satan, the earth was made to appear "old."

3a. Progressive Creation with Special Creation of Each Lifeform. The earth and the universe are several billion years old. At various times during the creation period, God performed a distinctive miraculous creation to produce each new lifeform. (De novo creation or supernatural transformation of an existing lifeform.)
3b. Progressive Creation. The earth and the universe are several billion years old. At various times during the creation period, God performed distinctive miraculous acts to produce lifeforms with certain new features or increased complexity. (Microevolution can produce some amount of species diversity, but novel biological or biochemical structures were specially and miraculously created at the appropriate times. (e.g. perhaps through miraculous genetic transformations in zygotes.))
3c. Progressive Creation through "Miraculous" Evolution. Creation occurred through evolution, but the success of evolution is "surprising;" that is, one would not have expected the evolutionary process to be as successful as it has been. Thus God must have been "directing" the evolutionary process, perhaps arranging (or pre- arranging) for the process to travel along preordained paths, leading to much better-than-expected outcomes.

4a. Evolutionary Creation with Special Creation of First Life. Creation occurred through evolution and there is nothing surprising about its success -- we would expect evolution to produce something like what we see. Nevertheless, creation occurred at God's hand and evolution was the tool. However, the fact that biological evolution got started in the first place is surprising, and that suggests a miraculous creation of first life.
4b. Evolutionary Creation. Creation occurred through evolution and there is nothing surprising about its success; nor is it surprising that life got started in the first place. We should expect abiogenesis and evolution to produce something like what we see. God designed the natural laws of the universe to be just right for successful abiogenesis and biological evolutionary. God's governance of those natural processes is pictured in a variety of ways:
4b1. Evolutionary Creation with Programmed Outcome. The laws which govern biochemistry and biological evolution are designed to ensure that life will "self-organize" into certain kinds of lifeforms. God ordained and intended our existence, and designed the process to achieve it.
4b2. Evolutionary Creation with Chosen Outcome. Biological evolution could, in theory, have followed many different paths with divergent outcomes. However, the exact path which evolution took on earth, and the final outcome we see today, were entirely ordained by God, since every event which appears to be "chance" to us is actually determined by God.
4b3. Evolutionary Creation with Flexible Outcome. The exact path which evolution took on earth, and the final outcome we see today, were not entirely predetermined by God; rather, God gave his creation a certain degree of "freedom." God also knew that this process would eventually produce intelligent, personal creatures to whom he could reveal Himself.
4c. Evolutionary Creation Known only via Special Revelation. The fact that "the natural laws of the universe gave rise to a successful evolutionary process" is not really surprising, and this is not by itself very good evidence for God's design. Nevertheless, we believe that creation occurred through God's hand because of God's special revelation.

5. Deistic Evolution. God created the universe and the laws of nature, "set them in motion," and let them "do their thing" without any intervention or meaningful governance.

6. Atheistic Evolution. The universe is self-existing; there is no creator. (There are, of course, many philosophically different varieties of atheistic evolution. They would require yet another "spectrum" to differentiate.)

which i think is one of the best spectrum lists

but asking the question in a particular way poses a certain set of answers.
1.better is to ask how to interpret Gen 1
for instance i use Kline's framework interpretation
2.then ask how old the earth is.....i am OE
3.then ask something about how to interpret Adam
i am historical and two adams theory.
4.then ask if humans are related by descent to the great apes or a special creation. this distinquishes OEC from any type of TE
i'm TE
5.then ask how God is related to evolution.
i am a providential evolutionist......
6. lastly ask something about the need for God's intervention at the beginning of life, is abiogenesis to be expected naturally?

then you actually have enough info to pigeonhole into one of the above categories. ... i'm 4a

 

[Beoga]

God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. he said it is finished and it was complete. no more.

 

[Ceris]

You could probably stick me in #2 (not sure on the a,b,c aspects).

 

[Gabriel]

Young Earth.

Lay out the choices you would like and I'll add a poll.

 

[Cal]

Young Earth.

Lay out the choices you would like and I'll add a poll.

Ok the poll will only be opened to reformed/calvinist's and let's just make it as simple as Genesis does:

The poll will say:

Do you believe God created all in six literal days, man did not descend from an ape, and the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

• Yes
• No
• Unsure

 

[Beoga]

yes... and a qoute from one of my favorite authors/pastors that i actually just read today.
"And just as a footnote to that; if God used any kind of evolution to create, evolution is dependent on decay and death, all effects or reflections of evil. So if God used any kind of evolution to create, then God authored evil; He created decay and He created death. And if God used any form of evolution, then His creation was not all good; it was not perfect when he created it, and it is what it is now because of decay and death, which He must have used in his creation, which are evidences of evil, then God must himself be evil. But God is not evil. God is all good and only good."
-John MacArthur

 

[Cal]

yes... and a qoute from one of my favorite authors/pastors that i actually just read today.
"And just as a footnote to that; if God used any kind of evolution to create, evolution is dependent on decay and death, all effects or reflections of evil. So if God used any kind of evolution to create, then God authored evil; He created decay and He created death. And if God used any form of evolution, then His creation was not all good; it was not perfect when he created it, and it is what it is now because of decay and death, which He must have used in his creation, which are evidences of evil, then God must himself be evil. But God is not evil. God is all good and only good."
-John MacArthur

Great Point!

 

[Gabriel]

OK, I am not bright enough to add a poll so I started a new thread with a poll. It is here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=672876 Notice that I changed your question a bit. It had too many characters for a poll question.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If anyone is interested in the issues revolving around creation-evolution-design, i've been working on them for about 18 months. Most of my studies are available via: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

the topic has been moved to the backburner for me with the need to study Calvin's Institutes but it is still an important issue personally.

 

[theFijian]

yes... and a qoute from one of my favorite authors/pastors that i actually just read today.
"And just as a footnote to that; if God used any kind of evolution to create, evolution is dependent on decay and death, all effects or reflections of evil. So if God used any kind of evolution to create, then God authored evil; He created decay and He created death. And if God used any form of evolution, then His creation was not all good; it was not perfect when he created it, and it is what it is now because of decay and death, which He must have used in his creation, which are evidences of evil, then God must himself be evil. But God is not evil. God is all good and only good."
-John MacArthur

Did plants die when they were eaten by Adam and Eve and the animals?

peace,
Andy

 

[Cal]

Did plants die when they were eaten by Adam and Eve and the animals?

peace,
Andy

"Genesis 1:29-30 makes it obvious that originally, animals and man were vegetarian. Some would say therefore that plants died before sin. However, the Bible in Genesis 1 makes it clear that animals and man have a 'nephesh'-that is, a 'life spirit,' or soul. Plants do not have this. Plants were given for food-they are not living in the same sense that animals are. Man was told he could eat animals after the Flood in Genesis 9:3. Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 make it clear that death came into the world because of sin."

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20010713_49.asp

 

[theFijian]

"Genesis 1:29-30 makes it obvious that originally, animals and man were vegetarian. Some would say therefore that plants died before sin. However, the Bible in Genesis 1 makes it clear that animals and man have a 'nephesh'-that is, a 'life spirit,' or soul. Plants do not have this. Plants were given for food-they are not living in the same sense that animals are. Man was told he could eat animals after the Flood in Genesis 9:3. Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 make it clear that death came into the world because of sin."

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20010713_49.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20010713_49.asp

Animals have a soul?

Andy

 

[Cal]

Animals have a soul?

Andy

The English word “soul” derives from a number of different words in the Old and New Testaments and is used in the Bible in a variety of ways. First, it is employed as a synonym for a living, breathing person. Moses wrote: “All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls” (Exodus 1:5; cf. Deuteronomy 10:22). In legal matters also, the word soul was used to denote any individual. The Lord told Moses: “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done’ ” (Leviticus 4:2). When Jacob was speaking of himself in Genesis 49:6, he used the expression, “O my soul”—which meant simply “me.” In each of these instances, actual people—individually or collectively—were under discussion.


Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death. In their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs noted that the word “soul” (Hebrew nephesh) often is employed to mean “life principle” (1907, p. 659). In Genesis 1:20,24,30, God spoke of the nephesh hayyah—literally “soul breathers” or “life breathers” (often translated as “living creatures” or “life”—cf. Leviticus 11:10). The writer of Proverbs observed in regard to animals: “A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (12:10). Hebrew scholar Hugo McCord therefore suggested:

Then the translators realized that the first meaning of nephesh is “breath,” and so Genesis 1:20,24,30 and Genesis 2:7 all fit together in understanding Moses as saying that all animals and man too are breathers. Breathers, coupled with hayyah, “living,” the translators thought, would be well translated, in the case of animals, as “living creatures,” and in the case of man as a “living being” (1995, 23[1]:87-88).​

Third, the word soul can be used to describe something that is immortal and thus never dies. In speaking of Rachel’s death at the birth of her son, Moses wrote: “And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died)” (Genesis 35:18). While Elijah was at the house of a widow in the city of Zarephath, the woman’s son died. But Elijah “cried unto Jehovah, and said..., ‘O Jehovah my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again’” (1 Kings 17:21). Hezekiah celebrated the fact that the soul survives the death of the body: “But thou hast in love to my soul (nephesh) delivered it from the pit of corruption” (Isaiah 38:17).

The question therefore becomes: Can the word “soul” be used correctly in referring to animals? The first definition obviously cannot apply to animals since animals are not persons. But the second definition most certainly would apply to animals. Compare the following passages. In Psalm 78:50 we find an example of the usage of “soul” as “life” when the writer said in speaking of the people of Egypt (who tried in vain to prevent the Israelites from leaving their country’s slavery) that God “spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence.” In this instance, the word “soul” (Hebrew nephesh) is used to denote the physical life of humans. But in Genesis 1:20,24, the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as “living creatures” (Hebrew nephesh hayyah). In this sense, then, yes, it is correct to say that animals have “souls”—since the word soul means only physical life. In responding to the question, “Do animals have souls?,” McCord wrote: “Yes, when the word soul, nephesh, only means ‘breath,’ as in Genesis 1:20 ([size=-1]ASV[/size]), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,’ nephesh hayyah, literally, ‘living soul’” (1999).

Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/

But plants are not referred to in Scripture as having nephesh. This distinquishes them from the life given to humans and animals, therefore they do not "die" as humans and animals do.

Therefore to answer you question, no plants did not die when they were eaten by Adam and Eve as Scripture defines life and death. Sin resulted in the death for only those to whom He gave nephesh or breath.