What do you think?
Rate this book
God’s Good Earth: The Case for an Unfallen Creation
God's world was created "very good," Genesis chapter 1 tells us, and in this book Jon Garvey rediscovers the truth, known to the Church for its first 1,500 years but largely forgotten now, that the fall of mankind did not lessen that goodness. The natural creation does not require any apologies or excuses, but rather celebration and praise. The author's re-examination of the scriptural evidence, the writings of two millennia of Christian theologians, and the physical evidence of the world itself lead to the conclusion that we, both as Christians and as modern Westerners, have badly misunderstood our world. Restoring a truer vision of the goodness of the present creation can transform our own lives, sharpen the ministry of the church to the world of both people and nature, and give us a better understanding of what God always intended to bring about through Christ in the age to come. "A beautifully written book that can be read for pure enjoyment and enlightenment, and/or used as a scholarly resource on the essential problem of evil in God's creation. The optimistic theme is a rare commodity in the modern marketplace of ideas. The chapters on science are a powerful antidote to the prevailing popular view of evolution as a violent deadly struggle. A book full of new ideas, fresh approaches, and profound insights." --Seymour Garte, and Editor-in-Chief, God and Nature Magazine "A book that will bring us back to celebrating the joys and goodness of creation rather than mourning its destruction and fallen state. This demands positive action from us." --Ghillean T. Prance, Scientific Director of The Eden Project "Jon Garvey has written a challenging but necessary work on the goodness of creation. From opposite ends of the spectrum, young earth creationists and theistic evolutionists assume that radical evil permeates the natural order, in the form of earthquakes, predatory carnivores, etc. Garvey critiques this view, building a case from scripture and classical theology that humanity alone, not the whole created order, is fallen. This vindication of creation's goodness is a welcome rebuttal of modern-day Gnosticism." --Nick Needham, Highland Theological College, Scotland "Jon Garvey's astounding thesis, that the Bible does not teach the fall of nature due to human sin, seems on first hearing simply misguided. But his tour though biblical creation texts and the history of Christian theology is a revelation. Not only does Scripture clearly teach God's providence in creation's wildness--including animal predation--but the idea of nature's fall becomes popular only in the sixteenth century onwards. This is a brilliant book!" --J. Richard Middleton, Northeastern Seminary at Roberts Wesleyan College Born in Guildford, England, Jon Garvey studied medicine at Pembroke College, Cambridge University. Since 2011 his blog, The Hump of the Camel, has explored the theology of creation, attracting an extensive readership in the US, UK, and across the world. He now lives in rural Devonshire, within sight of England's Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. He is married, with three children and five granddaughters, is a Baptist elder, and plays guitar and saxophone semi-professionally.
252 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 23, 2019
7 people are currently reading
24 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
December 4, 2023
Thesis: Nature is not fallen as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin. Rather, it remains good.
Three lines of evidence:
- Biblical: YHWH is portrayed as the king of nature in the Bible. He uses it as his instrument for both blessing and cursing fallen humanity. Nature is obedient to whatever God’s good will is. What about the curse of the ground in Genesis 3? Garvey argues that if that does refer to a fall of nature, it is rescinded in Gen. 8: 20-22. Rom. 8? If I understand him right, Garvey is saying this does not refer to the corruption of the earth at the fall. Garvey argues that God made this first creation as an incomplete temple, which Adam was supposed to subdue and bring the Edenic presence of God to the ends of the earth. Adam failed. God persisted in his intention to see this reality come to fruition.
- Historical: Garvey shows an interesting variety of historical views throughout the church. While I’m not sure I would call Garvey’s view mainstream prior to the Reformation (certainly it isn’t universal), it does possess a respectable amount of consensus.
- Scientific: Garvey’s position certainly seems more scientifically plausible. Animals almost certainly died before the fall from a biological perspective. Decay is essential to life. What happened to banana peels that Adam and Eve would have eaten in the garden? Did no microscopic organisms ever die? Wouldn’t they pile up rapidly and make life impossible for higher organisms?
Garvey then addresses a few bad ideas that are running rampant based on his thesis of a good earth.
1) Young-Earth Christians who hold to a drastic fall of nature. This just doesn’t seem plausible to Garvey in light of the above evidence.
2) Evolutionists (whether theistic or atheistic) who hold that nature is dark and twisted. Garvey’s response is simplistic but touching: Go outside. How much torture do you see the animals in your backyard inflicting? Where is the agony over the threat of extinction? It isn’t there. Nature has blood and guts and parasites, sure. But it also has an overwhelming and undeniable goodness. It is almost like someone made it for us to inhabit.
His closing comment is a helpful reminder no matter how you take his argument: Whenever you notice something in nature, stop and ask yourself, “What about this thing does God find very good?” Then worship its Creator.
Three lines of evidence:
- Biblical: YHWH is portrayed as the king of nature in the Bible. He uses it as his instrument for both blessing and cursing fallen humanity. Nature is obedient to whatever God’s good will is. What about the curse of the ground in Genesis 3? Garvey argues that if that does refer to a fall of nature, it is rescinded in Gen. 8: 20-22. Rom. 8? If I understand him right, Garvey is saying this does not refer to the corruption of the earth at the fall. Garvey argues that God made this first creation as an incomplete temple, which Adam was supposed to subdue and bring the Edenic presence of God to the ends of the earth. Adam failed. God persisted in his intention to see this reality come to fruition.
- Historical: Garvey shows an interesting variety of historical views throughout the church. While I’m not sure I would call Garvey’s view mainstream prior to the Reformation (certainly it isn’t universal), it does possess a respectable amount of consensus.
- Scientific: Garvey’s position certainly seems more scientifically plausible. Animals almost certainly died before the fall from a biological perspective. Decay is essential to life. What happened to banana peels that Adam and Eve would have eaten in the garden? Did no microscopic organisms ever die? Wouldn’t they pile up rapidly and make life impossible for higher organisms?
Garvey then addresses a few bad ideas that are running rampant based on his thesis of a good earth.
1) Young-Earth Christians who hold to a drastic fall of nature. This just doesn’t seem plausible to Garvey in light of the above evidence.
2) Evolutionists (whether theistic or atheistic) who hold that nature is dark and twisted. Garvey’s response is simplistic but touching: Go outside. How much torture do you see the animals in your backyard inflicting? Where is the agony over the threat of extinction? It isn’t there. Nature has blood and guts and parasites, sure. But it also has an overwhelming and undeniable goodness. It is almost like someone made it for us to inhabit.
His closing comment is a helpful reminder no matter how you take his argument: Whenever you notice something in nature, stop and ask yourself, “What about this thing does God find very good?” Then worship its Creator.
February 12, 2019
In this book, Jon Garvey, a retired medical doctor, challenges “some of the underlying assumptions now made in the discussion of natural evil, particularly within the evangelical Christian tradition, about what Christianity itself has taught on it, both from within its biblical foundation, and in its theological history.” (p. xvii) He presents “the true position of biblical and historic church teaching as clearly as possible.” (p. xviii) “It has to be a worthwhile goal to take an authentic view both of what science and Christian doctrine actually reveal about the world.” (p xix) “[T]he aim of this study is to point out that what happened to humankind in the garden did not spread to the rest of the world”. (p. 4)
In section one, Garvey surveys the relevant biblical material and showed that the Bible’s position is that the natural creation remains God’s servant, and has not become corrupted or evil because of human sin. This section included some interesting and new (at least to me) observations from Scripture supporting the case for an unfallen world by pointing out how good God’s creation actually is. Garvey concludes that neither the sin of humanity nor the corruption of the angelic powers is associated in Scripture with any major changes in nature.
The second section documents the history of “the doctrine of nature, with reference to the fall, through the past 2,000 years, to show how the balance shifted from a strongly positive view of the goodness of creation to a seriously negative one” (p. xix), including possible reasons why the traditional view rose to prominence around the sixteenth century. He includes a little more than I wanted to know about that history, but obviously believed it was important in order to make his point. Chapter 7, aptly titled “Creation Fell in 1517,” describes a profound reversal in the writings of the reformers. Garvey attributes at least some of this to the Greek Prometheus cycle, particular Pandora’s jar (aka Box), suggesting that natural evil flew out of a jar in a Greek myth, and not primarily from Christian Scripture at all. (p. 112) This section was well worth getting through for what came next.
In the third section, Garvey looks at natural evil as evidenced within the world itself and why nature is now so widely perceived as cruel and malevolent, when once it wasn't. Garvey makes good use of his medical training and practice to frequently provide a fresh perspective on the usual arguments for “nature red in tooth and claw,” suggesting that they have been somewhat exaggerated. For instance, he completely discredits the claim that most animals suffer an agonizing death. Garvey proposes that “since evolution and the living world generally are found on close examination not to be steeped in selfishness at all, but overwhelmingly founded on cooperation and interdependence, human sin and selfishness may be seen for what they truly are—an aberration within God’s good creation.” (p. 146)
In the final section, he sketches out the differences it makes to Christian life and hope to accept either the traditional view that creation is tainted by the fall, or the view that it is not fallen. For instance, “one is much more likely to wish to preserve what one loves because it is God’s good handiwork, than if one views it as irretrievably corrupted by evil” (p. 199) There is also “the Christian hope engendered by the resurrection of Christ [in] the renewal of all things in heaven and earth, not their complete replacement . . .” (p. 199)
Finally, “This understanding will demand, for many of us, some fundamental readjustments of beliefs and attitudes, but we may take comfort in the fact that we are not, by making those changes, moving away from the faith of the Bible and the church of Christ, but closed back towards both.” (p. 202)
This book was written by a Christian layman, and it is suited for Christian laymen as well as anyone else interested in a fresh perspective on the fall of nature. I highly recommend it.
In section one, Garvey surveys the relevant biblical material and showed that the Bible’s position is that the natural creation remains God’s servant, and has not become corrupted or evil because of human sin. This section included some interesting and new (at least to me) observations from Scripture supporting the case for an unfallen world by pointing out how good God’s creation actually is. Garvey concludes that neither the sin of humanity nor the corruption of the angelic powers is associated in Scripture with any major changes in nature.
The second section documents the history of “the doctrine of nature, with reference to the fall, through the past 2,000 years, to show how the balance shifted from a strongly positive view of the goodness of creation to a seriously negative one” (p. xix), including possible reasons why the traditional view rose to prominence around the sixteenth century. He includes a little more than I wanted to know about that history, but obviously believed it was important in order to make his point. Chapter 7, aptly titled “Creation Fell in 1517,” describes a profound reversal in the writings of the reformers. Garvey attributes at least some of this to the Greek Prometheus cycle, particular Pandora’s jar (aka Box), suggesting that natural evil flew out of a jar in a Greek myth, and not primarily from Christian Scripture at all. (p. 112) This section was well worth getting through for what came next.
In the third section, Garvey looks at natural evil as evidenced within the world itself and why nature is now so widely perceived as cruel and malevolent, when once it wasn't. Garvey makes good use of his medical training and practice to frequently provide a fresh perspective on the usual arguments for “nature red in tooth and claw,” suggesting that they have been somewhat exaggerated. For instance, he completely discredits the claim that most animals suffer an agonizing death. Garvey proposes that “since evolution and the living world generally are found on close examination not to be steeped in selfishness at all, but overwhelmingly founded on cooperation and interdependence, human sin and selfishness may be seen for what they truly are—an aberration within God’s good creation.” (p. 146)
In the final section, he sketches out the differences it makes to Christian life and hope to accept either the traditional view that creation is tainted by the fall, or the view that it is not fallen. For instance, “one is much more likely to wish to preserve what one loves because it is God’s good handiwork, than if one views it as irretrievably corrupted by evil” (p. 199) There is also “the Christian hope engendered by the resurrection of Christ [in] the renewal of all things in heaven and earth, not their complete replacement . . .” (p. 199)
Finally, “This understanding will demand, for many of us, some fundamental readjustments of beliefs and attitudes, but we may take comfort in the fact that we are not, by making those changes, moving away from the faith of the Bible and the church of Christ, but closed back towards both.” (p. 202)
This book was written by a Christian layman, and it is suited for Christian laymen as well as anyone else interested in a fresh perspective on the fall of nature. I highly recommend it.
September 18, 2019
The doctrine of a fallen creation, evil and corrupted by human sin, is one of those things that many Christians (including myself) take for granted. But when you actually dig into where these beliefs originate you might be surprised how little biblical evidence there is for it.
Most of the texts argue vehemently against the idea, and what proof texts are used to support it are at best incredibly exaggerated.
A whole plethora of ills are blamed on Adam’s Fall from tornados, to earthquakes, to carnivores, even to the very creation of certain insects that people find distasteful (mosquitoes and parasites for instance).
But sin did not (nor could it) create any physical creatures. Only God can do that and everything he created was “very good” (according to Genesis).
Jon Garvey does a good job in not only thoroughly explaining the biblical evidence for a good creation, but also the history of it and some probable theories of how the shift in world views might have come about.
It turns out for the first 1,500 of years of church history the majority opinion of church fathers had a very highly optimistic view of creation, and indeed the negative and cruel view of creation as seen in today’s world was equated with paganism. This is fascinating to me because during that time period people were much more exposed to the harsher elements of nature than we are today. Whether it being the blistering cold winters, deadly diseases, infections and so forth .... even then they found reason to praise God in all things.
Of course, the church fathers weren’t blind or ignorant to the bad things that happened in this world. The difference is how they viewed those events. Rather than blaming a tornado or earthquake on an uncontrolled view of creation that became tainted due to human sin ... instead those things were viewed as God’s faithful servants, obeying his will. And while those servants may cause us harm, it is only because God is using it as punishment, and at other times for blessing, according to his will. But that doesn’t make those things evil or corrupt in their own right ... instead they are “very good”. Even Satan in the trials of Job is called God’s servant and the serpent of Adam and Eve isn’t necessarily some foreign intrusion ... it was a creature that HE made. Like all the others.
To demonstrate the different viewpoints of old church fathers and more modern day preachers, compare these two bits of writing, one from the 4th century church Augustine of Hippo to that of the 19th century pastor Charles Spurgeon.
“To you nothing at all is evil, not only to you but to your creation at large, because there is nothing outside to break in and upset the order you have imposed on it. But in parts of it some things do not harmonize with other parts, and are considered evil for that reason. But with other parts they do harmonize and are good, good in themselves ... Let it be far from to say: “These things should not be,” for if these were the only things I could see, I should still long for the better, and should be bound to praise you for these alone. But when I understood from Scripture the praise arising from all things both in earth and heaven I did not now long for better things because I considered everything.”
Compared to Spurgeon’s sermon:
“Creation glows with a thousand beauties, even in its present fallen condition; yet clearly enough it is not as when it came from the Maker’s hand—the slime of the serpent is on it all—this is not the world which God pronounced to be “very good.” We hear of tornadoes, of earthquakes, of tempests, of volcanoes, of avalanches, and of the sea which devoureth its thousands: there is sorrow in the sea, and there is misery on the land; and into the highest palaces as well as the poorest cottages, death, the insatiable, is shooting his arrows, while his quiver is still full to bursting with future woes. It is a sad, sad world. The curse has fallen on it since the fall, and thorns and thistles it bringeth forth, not from its soil alone, but from all that comes of it.”
How did it one go from “to you nothing at all is evil” to “the slime of the serpent is on it all”? From the careful considering of the bigger picture of God’s plan in the first, to the the apocalyptic nightmare in the second? While there are probably a multitude of reasons for the change, one of the more intriguing theories is that of how the Christian story of Eve eating the apple and being cast out of the garden over time got merged with the Greek myth of Pandora opening her “jar of troubles” and unleashing all sorts of havoc into the natural world.
While the two stories have similarities from a surface reading, the morals they teach are very different.
I would recommend this book for anyone interested in becoming more acquainted with biblical doctrine, church history, and challenging, perhaps, ingrained assumptions and getting a fresh perspective.
-Tim
Most of the texts argue vehemently against the idea, and what proof texts are used to support it are at best incredibly exaggerated.
A whole plethora of ills are blamed on Adam’s Fall from tornados, to earthquakes, to carnivores, even to the very creation of certain insects that people find distasteful (mosquitoes and parasites for instance).
But sin did not (nor could it) create any physical creatures. Only God can do that and everything he created was “very good” (according to Genesis).
Jon Garvey does a good job in not only thoroughly explaining the biblical evidence for a good creation, but also the history of it and some probable theories of how the shift in world views might have come about.
It turns out for the first 1,500 of years of church history the majority opinion of church fathers had a very highly optimistic view of creation, and indeed the negative and cruel view of creation as seen in today’s world was equated with paganism. This is fascinating to me because during that time period people were much more exposed to the harsher elements of nature than we are today. Whether it being the blistering cold winters, deadly diseases, infections and so forth .... even then they found reason to praise God in all things.
Of course, the church fathers weren’t blind or ignorant to the bad things that happened in this world. The difference is how they viewed those events. Rather than blaming a tornado or earthquake on an uncontrolled view of creation that became tainted due to human sin ... instead those things were viewed as God’s faithful servants, obeying his will. And while those servants may cause us harm, it is only because God is using it as punishment, and at other times for blessing, according to his will. But that doesn’t make those things evil or corrupt in their own right ... instead they are “very good”. Even Satan in the trials of Job is called God’s servant and the serpent of Adam and Eve isn’t necessarily some foreign intrusion ... it was a creature that HE made. Like all the others.
To demonstrate the different viewpoints of old church fathers and more modern day preachers, compare these two bits of writing, one from the 4th century church Augustine of Hippo to that of the 19th century pastor Charles Spurgeon.
“To you nothing at all is evil, not only to you but to your creation at large, because there is nothing outside to break in and upset the order you have imposed on it. But in parts of it some things do not harmonize with other parts, and are considered evil for that reason. But with other parts they do harmonize and are good, good in themselves ... Let it be far from to say: “These things should not be,” for if these were the only things I could see, I should still long for the better, and should be bound to praise you for these alone. But when I understood from Scripture the praise arising from all things both in earth and heaven I did not now long for better things because I considered everything.”
Compared to Spurgeon’s sermon:
“Creation glows with a thousand beauties, even in its present fallen condition; yet clearly enough it is not as when it came from the Maker’s hand—the slime of the serpent is on it all—this is not the world which God pronounced to be “very good.” We hear of tornadoes, of earthquakes, of tempests, of volcanoes, of avalanches, and of the sea which devoureth its thousands: there is sorrow in the sea, and there is misery on the land; and into the highest palaces as well as the poorest cottages, death, the insatiable, is shooting his arrows, while his quiver is still full to bursting with future woes. It is a sad, sad world. The curse has fallen on it since the fall, and thorns and thistles it bringeth forth, not from its soil alone, but from all that comes of it.”
How did it one go from “to you nothing at all is evil” to “the slime of the serpent is on it all”? From the careful considering of the bigger picture of God’s plan in the first, to the the apocalyptic nightmare in the second? While there are probably a multitude of reasons for the change, one of the more intriguing theories is that of how the Christian story of Eve eating the apple and being cast out of the garden over time got merged with the Greek myth of Pandora opening her “jar of troubles” and unleashing all sorts of havoc into the natural world.
While the two stories have similarities from a surface reading, the morals they teach are very different.
I would recommend this book for anyone interested in becoming more acquainted with biblical doctrine, church history, and challenging, perhaps, ingrained assumptions and getting a fresh perspective.
-Tim
Read
February 3, 2021This is likely the best book on the subject of animal death before the Fall. That doctrinal question has been of great interest to me in the past, and I settled the question in my own mind a few years ago. Yes, God created the sinless world with animal death and suffering, and he called it good. The "bondage to decay" described in Romans 8 preceded the fall and was meant to end when Adam's race was made more glorious (similar to Christ's resurrection body), and the Fall merely postponed that upgrade. Unfortunately there was no really excellent book on this doctrinal question. For a while I thought maybe I should write one to fill the need. But after skim reading this book really quickly, I think I no longer need to do that, because this book looks even better than what I would've written. The author seems to come to the same conclusions as I did, but he seems to flesh out the reasoning more and defend it even better. However, I must admit I haven't read the book thoroughly (like I said, I skimmed it). I'm too busy at this point in time to spend half a day giving this book a careful read, especially since I don't have any pressing doctrinal questions on the issue. Therefore I'm refraining from giving this a "star" rating. Maybe later I'll read it carefully and enthusiastically recommend it, but for now all I can say is, "it looks really great."
One small criticism: I don't think the author mentions the possibility of demonic interference in biology. Or at least, I didn't see him mention that anywhere in my skimming. When I say demonic interference, I mean the possibility that fallen angels are partly responsible for the (mal)formation of certain creatures like hyenas. I am not totally sure about this idea myself, but it seems like a possibility worth considering in a small minority of cases (like hyenas). Overall this is incidental to the debate though, and doesn't affect how we think of the majority of creation e.g. a noble lion killing and eating its prey.
One small criticism: I don't think the author mentions the possibility of demonic interference in biology. Or at least, I didn't see him mention that anywhere in my skimming. When I say demonic interference, I mean the possibility that fallen angels are partly responsible for the (mal)formation of certain creatures like hyenas. I am not totally sure about this idea myself, but it seems like a possibility worth considering in a small minority of cases (like hyenas). Overall this is incidental to the debate though, and doesn't affect how we think of the majority of creation e.g. a noble lion killing and eating its prey.
April 17, 2019
Adding the following words would have made the subtitle more clear: “The (better “A”) (biblically and theologically conservative) case for an unfallen (non-human) creation.” Insofar as Garvey sticks to this topic, he is helpful, insightful, and even winsome.
But his haphazard critique of theistic evolution is irresponsibly unnuanced. It is simply not the case that all those who accept theistic evolution are deists. Nor do all believe in “blind,” or purposeless, evolution. To the contrary, many theologians (including Catholics, Protestants, Idealists, Process thinkers, etc.) maintain a robust sense of immanent divine action and teleology.
In the end, Garvey’s apriori presuppositions about Christian Scripture lead him to double down on a primarily transcendent, interventionist God who is the sovereign governor of nature. While this is a legitimately Christian route to take, I am unconvinced that it is the only one—nor am I persuaded that it is the most helpful model of the God-world relationship given humankind’s current estrangement from the rest of God’s “Good Earth.”
But his haphazard critique of theistic evolution is irresponsibly unnuanced. It is simply not the case that all those who accept theistic evolution are deists. Nor do all believe in “blind,” or purposeless, evolution. To the contrary, many theologians (including Catholics, Protestants, Idealists, Process thinkers, etc.) maintain a robust sense of immanent divine action and teleology.
In the end, Garvey’s apriori presuppositions about Christian Scripture lead him to double down on a primarily transcendent, interventionist God who is the sovereign governor of nature. While this is a legitimately Christian route to take, I am unconvinced that it is the only one—nor am I persuaded that it is the most helpful model of the God-world relationship given humankind’s current estrangement from the rest of God’s “Good Earth.”
July 11, 2024
Convincingly researched and beautifully told, Jon Garvey’s God’s Good Earth presents the reader with plenty of reasons to reject the "Christian" “it's just part of our fallen earth” excuse for the world’s supposed wrongs. Just possibly, a world where lions chase and eat their pray, and don’t lie down with lambs, was the world God wanted us to love. And just possibly our forebears in Jewish and Christian traditions really did think the world was, as God described it, “very good.”
Seeing the world as good has surprising repercussions for how we view science, history, nature and more, placing evolution in a firmly God-given light. I loved this book and thoroughly enjoyed the premise and the read. Highly recommended.
Disclosure: I met the author many years ago. I’d love to meet him again now and talk about this book.
Seeing the world as good has surprising repercussions for how we view science, history, nature and more, placing evolution in a firmly God-given light. I loved this book and thoroughly enjoyed the premise and the read. Highly recommended.
Disclosure: I met the author many years ago. I’d love to meet him again now and talk about this book.
July 1, 2025
Creation As It Truly Is
The writer gives an overview of what is the reality of creation as good and not evil as has been portrayed since Calvin. Modern christians have strayed from what the Bible says about many things and among them is the belief that creation became evil when Adam sinned. The writer goes through the history of how belief in the evil creation developed and what the early church believed that creation was never fallen, but is good in God who takers care of creation and how creation is for the good of humanity. A very good book about christians that shows the best way to view creation and to take care of creation as a part of loving God.
The writer gives an overview of what is the reality of creation as good and not evil as has been portrayed since Calvin. Modern christians have strayed from what the Bible says about many things and among them is the belief that creation became evil when Adam sinned. The writer goes through the history of how belief in the evil creation developed and what the early church believed that creation was never fallen, but is good in God who takers care of creation and how creation is for the good of humanity. A very good book about christians that shows the best way to view creation and to take care of creation as a part of loving God.
May 4, 2020
He presents the case that creation is indeed good as opposed to fallen. He exams 3 points of view. First is scripture. He makes a convincing case that scripture says creation is good. Second, he examines the teaching if the church thru history. It is only in the last 200 or so years that creation is labelled fallen. Last h3 attempt# to make the case that creation itself is not as re$ in tooth and claw as described. I found thus last section the weakest and not super convincing.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews