(a quick response on the run as I too will be out of town until Monday
so I'll do the best that I can)
> I'm not sure what you mean by "how the
>Gospel deals with physical death." Could you elaborate? While I see
>spiritual death as the immediate consequence of sin, I agree that physical
>death is a consequence of sin. In Adam's case, it was his own sin.
First let me apologize and acknowledge that the TE camp generally
exhibits a lot of difference in this area so I'm not trying to paint
everyone with the same brush. I guess I should have phrased myself...
"Some TEs...".
I'm under the impression that some TEs do not see Adam's physical death
as the consequence of sin but rather the built-in God planned mechanism
to accomplish his will in continually developing the physical realm.
Some see man as a special case, perhaps especially created at some
point in time while the balance of living things were subject to and
experiencing evolution. Still others see man as evolved, but that at a
point in time God took a particular interest in man and breathed
spiritual life into him and created a special relationship that the
rest of the animal kingdom did not have. The explanations are pretty
diverse and I'm sure there are more, but in most cases man's physical
death is accepted more as a practical matter that accomodates his
evolutionary origins rather than as a consequence of his rebellion
against God. From this, differences in the Gospel are articulated to
make the framework fit.
In some TE the paradox occurs in a subtly nuanced Gospel that would
state that Adam was subject to physical death before the fall, because
he evolved that way as God planned it, through no fault of his own, bit
still needs a savior to rescue him from it. The traditionally orthodox
gospel sees mankind's physical death as the consequence of Adam's fall,
in that Adam was specially created for an eternal relationship with God
that Adam broke through sin. Christ reconciled this and because of Him
there is a promised resurrection that will put us back into that
eternal fellowship.
> By virtue of being separated from God and cut off from the tree of life (Gen
>3:22, 23), eventually, the processes of decay operating outside the garden
>caught up with him and he died physically.
This seems to be in agreement with Genesis 23:22, in that the tree of
life had some restorative powers, but not necessarily continually
needed by Adam before the fall as death came through eating the fruit
of the tree of knowledge and not in just being alive. Note that there
was a command to refrain from that which would cause death, but silence
in scripture regarding how to preserve life unless one reads into
scripture that that was the purpose of the tree of life. Perhaps some
insight into this would be to pursue the question of whether we will
require to eat of the tree of life after our resurrection. Many do not
agree that the eating of the tree of life is or was needed as a
condition to be free from death, but rather that the gift of eternal
life is freely given to us through God's grace.
> In our case today, I presume
>it's both our own sins and the consequences of the sins of all men through
>history that leads after 70+/- years to physical death.
And our sin-nature that guarantees that we will sin, and perhaps "sin
in the seed", but boy that's a rabbit trail that I'm not ready to
follow! Thanks for getting back, hope you enjoy your weekend.
Paul Durham