After any tragedy like the one we've seen in Japan, people ordinarily set aside their differences and work together to give aid to all those affected. Certainly, the differences of opinion regarding our origins seems inconsequential at a time like this. However, it is also at times like this that people ask the question, “why would God allow something like this to happen?” And in such a time, our view of origins bears directly on how we would answer.
The Bible says that when God created the world, He saw that it was all very good (Genesis 1:31). There were no earthquakes, floods, or disasters of any sort. There was no death. It was not until after Adam sinned that death entered into the world (Romans 5:12). The Bible tells us that it was at the Fall that God cursed the ground for the sake of Adam (Genesis 3:17) and the creation groans under the Curse even until now (Romans 8:22). The earthquakes and floods we see now are the result of the Curse. They are not God's perfect will but are His judgment for Adam's sin and our continued rebellion against Him. In this world, we will continue to have tribulation (John 16:33) until God restores His creation to the paradise He intended it to be (Revelation 21:1-6). To that end, He sent His Son so that whoever should believe in Him would have eternal life (John 3:16).
On the other hand, there are some Christians who believe in an “old” creation and theistic evolution. How exactly do they answer questions like this? If God used evolution to create us, then death and tragedy are intentional. If the earth is billions of years old, then this earthquake is rather ordinary. Earthquakes, volcanoes, and flooding are how God shapes the earth. Over the supposed billions of years the earth has existed, there should have been millions of earthquakes. Why then should we consider this one a tragedy? It's just another tink of God's hammer as He continues shaping the earth just as He's always done. And what about the thousands who died? I suppose they're just another step in the evolutionary ladder who have gone the way of Homo ergaster or Australopithecus.
To say that it doesn't matter what we believe about origins is to say that it doesn't matter what we believe about the character of God. Do we believe in a Holy God who is the Judge of His creation and who sent His Son to redeem us from our bondage of sin? Or do we believe in a capricious god who, for billions of years, has sent disaster upon disaster to clear the way for his next-best species of animal on his way to humans?
Let me close by saying this: I'm not exploiting this tragedy to promote my views on Genesis. Rather, I'm using it as an opportunity to show that our beliefs have consequences. If we are to be witnesses to the world, we must share the good news. And what is the good news? It is that there is life in Jesus and everyone who believes in Him will not die (John 11:25-26). There is no hope in the god of evolution. We cannot turn to him for comfort at a time like this. Death and suffering are his plan for us.
5 comments:
"If God used evolution to create us, then death and tragedy are intentional."
By this logic every sin you commit was intended directly by God.
"If the earth is billions of years old, then this earthquake is rather ordinary. "
In a sense I agree with you. There's more to this than you realise.
"Why then should we consider this one a tragedy?"
It is just as we see death. Death is often very good in our eyes, especially for those of us who love a good steak. Death is relative and in some contexts, most notably when humans are involved, it is tragic. The same goes for earthquakes. Earthquakes cannot be labelled immoral, they are amoral, just as death is.
"And what is the good news? It is that there is life in Jesus and everyone who believes in Him will not die (John 11:25-26). There is no hope in the god of evolution. We cannot turn to him for comfort at a time like this. Death and suffering are his plan for us."
Christ's suffering makes sense of these things regardless of how you believe God created. By not recognising this you are not capable of correctly describing beliefs in theistic evolution.
PB,
You said, “By this logic every sin you commit was intended directly by God.”
I'm not sure I follow you. The Bible says that death is the wages of sin. Death is always the result of sin. It is God's judgment. He did not intend it to be a part of the creation and the Bible assures us that in the New Jerusalem, there will be no more curse and death. You are the one who says that God uses death to create. You have repeated it again in your comment here. So, according to TE, death comes before sin. Actually, death is unrelated to sin. According to TE, death preceded the sin of the first man by a few billion years.
You said, “It is just as we see death. Death is often very good in our eyes, especially for those of us who love a good steak. Death is relative and in some contexts, most notably when humans are involved, it is tragic. The same goes for earthquakes. Earthquakes cannot be labelled immoral, they are amoral, just as death is.”
Death is amoral? Then why does the Bible say that death is the wages of sin? Why is death called the “last enemy? Why did Jesus die to save us from death?
You said, “Christ's suffering makes sense of these things regardless of how you believe God created. By not recognising this you are not capable of correctly describing beliefs in theistic evolution.”
What exactly am I not “recognising”? (UK English keeps messing up my spell check). If it was God's plan all along that we die, then Christ's death on the cross makes no sense.
Thanks for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
RK.
The issue is what we mean by death. Death in the Biblical sense seems to be turning from the Source of Life. When we do this, mortality becomes a reality and eternal life is not in reach without God. Sin makes mortality a reality and did so for those first sinners. It is intimately linked to biological death, but is so much more than that.
God did not plan for us to sever our ties with the Source of Life, but Christ was no contingency plan.
You're so, so close to a major realization.
You've laid out your religion and science as mutually exclusive.
I think you're right in that assessment. One is right, the other is wrong.
One is based entirely on a book that was compiled in full until the 1500's that contains the oral tradition of a superstitious nomadic desert culture with no understanding of the world around them.
The other is the result of 100's of years of meticulous research and experimentation fueled by honest inquiry.
It's not even really a choice for me any more than I have to choose to not believe in Odin. You think just like I do, I just believe in one less god.
Josh,
Thanks for visiting my blog and for your comments.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I believe science and Scripture are mutually exclusive. I have said that the Bible and evolution are not compatible but I have no problem with science. Now, if you mean to say that "science" and "evolution" are synonymous terms then we might have a disagreement.
I hope you visiting again and leave more feedback.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment