Is it ‘unjust’ that the whole creation should suffer because of Adam’s sin? and Is long-age creationist a misnomer?
Published: 17 July 2010 (GMT+10)
Canadian correspondent Andrew W. emailed this question in response to Gary Bates’ article Did God create life on other planets?:
I completely agree with CMI and Gary Bates with respect to the existence of ET, etc, but I have a question with one point of your Biblical defense. You say in a number of places that, if ET did exist, they would be unjustly destroyed as a result of Adam’s curse. But frankly, all of the animal kingdom has been ‘unjustly’ destroyed on account of Adam’s sin. I suppose you could say it is just because these were under Adam’s dominion. But although all animals now suffer death, only humans suffer the effects of the second death. So, any imagined ET might expect the same, no?
So really, since the entire Universe was affected by the curse, and, as I understand it, only the Earth was under Adam’s dominion, it is completely irrational to imagine life on other planets. However, I’m not sure I follow your logic specifically on the effects of the curse being unjust to other intelligent beings who are without sin. Perhaps this is better explained in Mr. Bates’ book?
Thanks for your email. Let’s consider the differences between animal life and human beings. Animals may be self aware and intelligent in some respects, but they are animals. We must remember that God made mankind in His image and was set apart from the animals (evolutionists would have humans as nothing more than evolved animals of course). The animals were given for man’s dominion anyway and we “unjustly” destroy them everyday when we eat them, so that is not really a strong argument. Remembering that God pre-knew the Fall anyway so He actually created them knowing that we would end up eating them after the Flood.
Because humans are made in God’s image we were made to obey His laws and therefore he gave us the ability to make moral decisions. Animals don’t have that capacity. Now, intelligent dolphins or bunny rabbits on other planets do not have the capacity to make such decisions and therefore their existence would not violate the gospel as I mentioned in the article. So if such animals did exist on other planets (although I think it extremely unlikely) and get destroyed when God rolls up the universe like a scroll it’s not really a big deal (as I said, we destroy them every day!). But intelligent, sentient and moral decision-making capable beings (in the order of human beings) would be a problem. Please take the time to read Is the Bible falsifiable? And the second part Is the Bible falsifiable and would a real ET do it? as they deal more specifically with this subject.
So these moral ETs who have not sinned are affected by the curse (the curse is clearly universal because God will destroy it anyway to make a new one). That’s exactly the point of my argument. It would be completely unjust and in a kind of way, almost immoral for God to destroy such self aware moral beings who have not sinned. And God is not capable of being “immoral” or unjust, for example. And once again, would God, foreknowing the Fall, create these advanced ETs with the knowledge that they would have no chance of salvation? At least He offers salvation to human beings, by sending Christ as a human to Earth to save humans, and not any hypothetical ETs. Also, bunny rabbits cannot be saved, of course.
I hope this helps. It might be useful to reread the original article too. Some have told me it’s a bit much to take in because we are having to consider concepts that we’ve never had to consider as Christians before.
Australian correspondent Philippus S. takes a hard line when it comes to compromise:
I watched the DVD of The Voyage that Shook the World and I found it very good.
I know who created the World, I can find all the answers in the Bible. I do however think we need to tell the world that anybody or person differing from that is the Anti-Christ. We give them a false name if we call them anything other than Anti-Christ. ‘Long-age creationist’ is a false name; it’s like calling the Devil ‘Angel’ all the time. The Anti-Christ loves the fact that we call them ‘Long-Age Christians’. The fact that we defend what we believe in calling them by their LAC name makes them acceptable—but they are not; they are the Anti-Christ—point, period.
Look in the New Testament what Jesus called the Anti-Christ of the time, ‘Serpents’ and ‘Snakes’; He did not call them Old Testament believers or Brothers for that matter, he called them what they are. Jesus hated political correctness, it’s a new name for the lie, political correctness is walking with the lie.
P.S.—I enjoyed all 19 of the DVDs I bought from you, these DVDs should be with every Christian Church throughout the world. We must start to attack the word “evolution” in schools and Universities; it’s not a science, it’s a word that leads people to hell. More people are scared of Hell than believe in God; they believe there is a hell but not a God.
Thanks for your comments and your encouragement.
Compromise with the world is indeed anathema to God. And political correctness should never motivate our actions, rather we should speak the truth. Wisdom often dictates that it is best to write articles, etc., in an irenic manner, so as to win those who are looking on. We take the Apostle Paul’s example as our standard (1 Corinthians 9:19-22); so we try to be winsome. This admonition from Titus 3:2 is apt: “to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.”
Jesus was the Son of God and saw the hearts of men and so could pronounce judgment on them. We don’t have that ability. There are those who have adopted views of creation that are certainly in the spirit of the anti-Christ (such as long ages), as you say. However, many of these have never really been confronted with the consequences of taking such views (they are untaught). When we approach them graciously, many are open to conviction of their sin and repent. If we approached them by accusing them of being anti-Christ, I doubt many would listen to us and therefore would never come to repent of their unbelief. I myself as a young Christian dabbled with various long-age compromises. In the circles I moved in there was no teaching that encouraged me to just believe what the Bible said and much that encouraged otherwise. However, I did love Jesus as my Lord and Saviour. When the inconsistencies of my views were (gently) pointed out to me, I repented and so am doing what I do now. You can find my story at: Creation: a personal word.
Thanks for your encouragement in what we do. Please continue to pray for us, that we will be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in knowing how best to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3), while speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). And please keep doing your part to share the message—by lending those DVDs to your relatives and friends, for example.
Every blessing in Christ,
PS. Regarding the 19 DVDs, these are indeed available in many countries and we are putting clips on YouTube to promote them so that more people will find out about them. You might be interested to know also that The Voyage that Shook the World is available for hire from Bigpond videos and we have heard that there was a waiting list. So it is getting out there in the community as well. Praise God!
Concerning long-age creationists who might also be called long-age Christians, I suspect that right now the Christian leadership is comprised mainly of these. Among the laity I expect that it is about half and half, and that the present trend still seems to favor the long-agers unless things get turned around, which I think is a good possibility that the Christian community may yet become educated because the truth is slowly coming to light since we are finally responding to the effects of the Enlightenment instead of totally embracing them.
I am not sure how gentle and winsome we can be when we tell our brothers (who are Christians if they are trusting Christ, but deceived on the subject of long ages) that they are on the road to apostasy? I am not saying that they have yet arrived at this sad destination. I would hesitate to make this kind of judgment, but I would not hesitate to say that they are on the road that leads to this inevitable destination unless they turn back and go the other way. How gentle and winsome does this strike you?