The question on whether there was death before sin has been a topic of debate for many years. Theologians, evangelical Christians and evolutionists have continuously defended their respective views and analysis on the topic.
Stambaugh and Emberger both wrote articles about the intriguing question. This paper will look into the message of each article in the pursuit of answers regarding the topic. James Stambaugh’s article entitled “Death before Sin? ” begins with the discussion of the meaning of good.He discusses it in the context of the Bible stating that: “Elsewhere, the phrase "very good" is used by men—men who have been affected by the fall of Adam.
But in Genesis 1:31, the statement is made by God—the One who is perfect in all that He does. The very least one can note about God saying this of His creation is that He has given it His approval. ” Since God has given man his approval, Stambaugh implies that death must have come after the fall of man. He continues his discussion on the basis that man and animals were only to eat plants, as was stated in the book of Genesis.Stambaugh contests that “Life, according to the Bible, resides in the "soul," or the Hebrew word "nephesh.
" This might be equated roughly with the concept of consciousness. This quality is ascribed only to man and some animals, but never plants. ” He says that plants only have biological life but not biblical life. This means that when man and animals eat plants, there was no death involved. He stresses out the basic premise that Adam’s sin brought death. He insists that since Adam was created sinless and perfect, he was not initially predestined to physical death.
It was when Adam sinned that he died spiritually, and physical death was only to follow. Stambaugh continues his discussion by mentioning passages in the scripture that promises the removal of the effects of sin: “Scripture plainly tells us that God will remove the effects of man's sin. This is the conclusion of Romans 8:19-21, yet we can see other passages which picture the results of God's intervention, such as Isaiah 11:6-9 and Revelation 21, 22. ” He stresses out that if God planned death to be part of His creation, then God should allow death to continue into eternity.
He concludes that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of sin. He redeemed man from spiritual and physical death. If death was a reality before the fall, Christ’s work on the cross would be for nothing. It is evident that Stambaugh believes that death came after the fall of man. Emberger’s article on the other hand, presents arguments that point the other way.
He discussed almost the very same arguments given by Stambaugh, although he gives alternatives to the reasons presented by the latter.Emberger’s article entitled “Theological Analysis of Selected Recent Creationist Assertions Concerning the Occurrence of Death before Sin” is divided into three main parts. Each section presents an assertion that is analyzed and discussed through the use of various opinions. The first assertion states that: Death would not be part of a good creation created by a good, omnipotent, and omniscient God. Emberger begins by quoting Stambaugh: “The Bible states that God created everything in an idyllic fashion ("very good," according to Gen. 1:31).
The earth, animals, and man cooperated in harmony and peaceful coexistence. God gave man the freedom of choice--to choose to obey or disobey him…” (qtd. in Emberger). However, he presents a statement by Reichenbach who argues an alternative: "a world operated by miracle is incompatible with a world inhabited by significantly free moral beings …In a world which operates according to divine miraculous intervention, there would be no necessary relation between phenomena, and in particular between cause and effect ” (qtd.
in Emberger).Emberger wants to stress out that if man and the world were made to be perfect, free will won’t be possible. In this case, man is not capable of making a choice between moral good and evil. Reichenback’s statement implies that if the world operates according to divine miraculous intervention, nothing will ever really happen.
The second assertion states that: Death before sin negates the atoning work of Christ. In this section, Emberger argues that atonement stands for the reconciliation of man’s relationship with God.Jesus Christ’s work on the cross restores a relationship that is broken by sin. He mentions that there are many theories on atonement that attempts to explain how Christ's work on the cross accomplishes this restoration. He further explains that because God is perfectly just, the divine law of punishment can never be set aside (Penal Theory). Based on this point of view, Christ received our penalty of sin through his work on the cross.
In this case, Christ’s work on the cross does not necessarily mean that He took the physical death that was supposed to be incurred by mankind because of sin.The third assertion states that: Long ages filled with death and suffering is not a process that an efficient, wise, caring, and loving God would use. Emberger begins by quoting Morris: "Evolution is the most wasteful and most cruel process that one could ever devise by which to 'create' men and women” (qtd. in Emberger). He contends that humans cannot fully understand God because humans are not equal with God. While humans cannot comprehend God’s plans, God expects man to trust him even in the face of death and despair.
Stambaugh and Emberger presented opposite views on the topic of discussion. Emberger is the open-minded one. He claims that scientific disciplines must not be seen as enemies of the faith but rather as companions that could help in discovering the truth about origins. On the other hand, Stambaugh seems to be against scientific explanations on the origins of man and the universe. Although it is true that the theory of evolution could not be entirely true, scientific evidence still shows that the Earth has existed a long time ago and the cycle of life seems to be active back then.
