 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Doc's 1/2/04 Sermon | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/7/2005 12:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | Ok, now.
I just challenge everyone to read ALL of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. See it for yourselves. Use MULTIPLE translations if you wish, including the LXX.
Hopefully, you will see the following:
Paul believes that physical death is a MANIFESTATIONAL EFFECT of the condemnation that came upon Adam because of his sin...and upon everyone else THROUGH Adam. Spiritual death was also an effect he describes. The point he makes is that Christ not only deals with the sin and condemnation...but also the MANIFESTATIONAL EFFECTS of those things, death.
There IS not physical vs spiritual death antimony. This is partly why Paul makes such a big deal about the PHYSICAL RESURRECTION of Christ...and has hope in the REDEMPTION OF OUR BODIES!
This is very apparent, yo. To say that ALL Paul was dealing with was spiritual death would be just as WRONG as saying he was ONLY dealing with physical death.
This is SO clear, yo.
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/7/2005 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | |
Huh? It's not "my" translation. I only use it occasionally, and only recently have used it at all. That said, the NET Bible translation is considered faithful to the original texts by many biblical scholars.
How does this make any difference with regard to the Romans 5 passage? My argument here is not based on any particular translation.
What is "one's fellow Christian" except "one's brother and sister." (Which, by the way, "and sister" is not in the original text, though on the same basis upon which one adds "and sister" into the text, one could just as well say "one's fellow Christian."
Anyway, here's the Holman Christian Standard Bible:
Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. 13 In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One.
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you! The one who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 The one who commits sin is of the Devil, for the Devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose: to destroy the Devil's works. 9 Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because His seed remains in him; he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God. 10 This is how God's children—and the Devil's children—are made evident. Whoever does not do what is right is not of God, especially the one who does not love his brother.
Here's the NRSV:
Romans 5:12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. 16And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 John 3:6No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. 7Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. 10The children of God and the children of the devil are revealed in this way: all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters. (or fellow Christian, what's the difference?)
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/7/2005 12:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Ok, now.
I just challenge everyone to read ALL of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. See it for yourselves. Use MULTIPLE translations if you wish, including the LXX.
Hopefully, you will see the following:
Paul believes that physical death is a MANIFESTATIONAL EFFECT of the condemnation that came upon Adam because of his sin...and upon everyone else THROUGH Adam. Spiritual death was also an effect he describes. The point he makes is that Christ not only deals with the sin and condemnation...but also the MANIFESTATIONAL EFFECTS of those things, death.
There IS not physical vs spiritual death antimony. This is partly why Paul makes such a big deal about the PHYSICAL RESURRECTION of Christ...and has hope in the REDEMPTION OF OUR BODIES!
This is very apparent, yo. To say that ALL Paul was dealing with was spiritual death would be just as WRONG as saying he was ONLY dealing with physical death.
This is SO clear, yo.
Hi Meph,
I'm not saying "ALL Paul was dealing with was spiritual death." However, it seems to me that it would helpful to you if you would be willing to read Romans 5 again, without your rather obvious Augustinian presuppositions in mind.
I have little hope that you will do so, however. Most "discussions" with you tend to go something like this:
Meph makes a strong assertion, Meph acts as if he's got his fingers in his ears, reasserts his view, and then says "this is SO obvious."
I just don't ever get the feeling from you that you are the least bit open to anything I have to say. Which is fine I suppose, but why should I continue talking to a wall (metaphorically, of course)? 
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/7/2005 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | In 1 Cor. 15 Paul is indeed arguing for the resurrection of the body.
I think what Meph is referring to in that chapter is:
1 Cor. 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. 21For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. NRSV
Which I agree does appear to say that physical death came as a result of Adam's sin. I don't find that this point is at all clear in the Romans 5 passage, however. That said, there still must be a sense in which Christ's resurrection is only participated in by the regenerate, or else universalism is plainly stated in 1 Cor. 15:22.
However, it still does not seem clear to me why viewing Gen. 1-3 as epic poetry (which all should admit it is) requires us to deny the line of reasoning that Paul is basing on the logic of the story of the Original Rebellion of Adam/mankind.
It should be noted that, as the thread from last year indicates, I have been willing to adjust my thinking in this area. I at one time was convinced that the gap theory was the best explanation, and that there was a literal historical Adam and Eve. Now I'm not so sure it matters that much.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/7/2005 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by JET
quote:
Originally posted by JET
What would/could/might you do with Paul's understanding of death itself resulting directly from Adamic sin?
What about you, JEE?
My working theory is that their death was ensured by means of their being cut off from the source of everlasting life--the Tree of Life.
John
1. I was talking about physical death here. Weren't you? Weren't you saying that physical death results from sin? As a result of sin, man is cut off from the source of life and "their death was ensured"?
2. Didn't you say somewhere else that, as a semi-Pelagian, you believe that we inherit physical death from Adam, but not spiritual death?
Btw, I hope it goes without saying, but I'm listening to you, not just trying to argue a point. My interest is based on my belief that the question about physical death resulting from Adam has big implications for other issues like POE, origins, inerrancy, etc. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/7/2005 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JET
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned– 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
It seems to me that Paul is trying to prove that "all sinned" (v. 12). How can he prove this? Adam clearly sinned because he broke a command (re. the tree). Those who have the law (Moses and later) sinned becasue they also broke a command (the law given to Moses). But what about the people in between? How does Paul prove they sinned? Because death reigned. Now, if he was talking about spiritual death, how would that prove his point? How do you prove that "spiritual death" reigned? But if he's talking about physical death, it makes perfect sense. The existence of physical death between Adam and Moses is obvious. Hence, Paul has proven his point.
And
quote:
Not denying that Paul is speaking about spiritual death throughout the passage. You're right that Paul does not make it real clear which he's speaking about. Maybe he had both in mind at some points and one or the other in mind at other points. (Unfortunately, Paul doesn't see the need to clear up potential confusion as to his meaning in this regard.)
But what do you think of my point specifically with respect to verse 14? It seems at least here Paul is speaking about physical death, no?.
Also, John, not to be a pain, but I'd really like to hear your thoughts specifically on my argument here (w/r/t verse 14). (If possible.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/7/2005 2:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
I will have to ask you to let me try to respond perhaps later on the new board. Please make sure you don't let me forget, okay?
No problem.
quote:
It should be noted that, as the thread from last year indicates, I have been willing to adjust my thinking in this area. I at one time was convinced that the gap theory was the best explanation, and that there was a literal historical Adam and Eve. Now I'm not so sure it matters that much.
You're slidin' dude. Next thing you'll be all "love not judgment", ...
where's that smoking guy? 
Later,
Earl
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/7/2005 2:16 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
quote:
I have little hope that you will do so, however. Most "discussions" with you tend to go something like this:
Meph makes a strong assertion, Meph acts as if he's got his fingers in his ears, reasserts his view, and then says "this is SO obvious."
I just don't ever get the feeling from you that you are the least bit open to anything I have to say. Which is fine I suppose, but why should I continue talking to a wall (metaphorically, of course)?
Man...do we HAVE to get personal? Was this necessary? Oh, well, whatever.
ad homi·nem adv.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/7/2005 3:04 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE: (emphases mine)
quote:
I was not trying to make an ad hominem "argument" by saying this. I was simply saying what it's typically like trying to "discuss" anything with you. And I was definitely not trying to support any argument in pointing this out. I of course agree it doesn't impact the truth one way or the other how willing or unwilling someone may be to consider another's point of view. It's just not been my experience that you ever listen to anything I say, and that you generally simply continue to reassert your original assertions, acting as if nobody else (except perhaps Tom and Greg) ever make a noteworthy point. (I wouldn't be saying this at all if I didn't in some strange kind of way value your point of view, now, would I)?
So it is not the case that I was trying to make up for a "weak" argument on my part by saying what I did. I was not trying to make an argument at all in saying it; I was essentially saying I give up. I was trying point out that I find you to be close minded to any points I ever bring up, and that because of that I find discussion with you generally to be unproductive. And I certainly don't mean this as a "personal attack." It's just how I subjectively experience our interaction. No doubt it's all about my lack of ability to express myself persuasively to you.
No sweat. I'm done. You are certainly welcome to continue to think you've proven something by reasserting the same points over and over.
Hmmm...let me highlight...check the emphasized part...
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way.
Now...back to the issues...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/7/2005 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm...to give light to the other side.
From Biblical Theology Resources...a link that was found on revivaltheology.net.
Death Came To All Men Because All Sinned
by Kel Good
http://www.biblical-theology.com/originalsin/deathsin.htm
Some citations...towards JEE's point...emphases mine
Physical death was introduced because of Adam's sin and he brought it upon all his posterity. But it only came upon all men as condemnation because of their own sin, which immediately loaded physical death with eternal implications. Physical death came upon all men before they sinned. But the second death, and physical death as it relates to this eternal consideration, came upon all men because all sinned. And Adam's choice, which brought about the circumstances that have become the occasion of temptation to which all men have freely chosen to submit, has resulted in death (eternal) coming upon all men, because all sinned.
Thus we would see Romans 5 to read as follows: Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin. Physical death, yes, but also physical death as it relates to the eternal death. In this way physical death as it relates to eternal death came upon all men, because these circumstances have resulted in all men following Adam's example and sinning as well, bringing upon themselves the spiritual implications of the physical death they inherited from Adam.
This explanation is an honest treatment of this passage in light of the scriptural idea of death with its layers of meaning. It also seems to coincide with what Jesus said: "If a man believes in me he will never die. And though he were dead, yet shall he live." Jesus makes two apparently contradictory statements. He says we will never die, then that if we die, we will live. This can only be harmonised by seeing death as physical and then physical as it relates to the eternal. If a man believes in Christ he will never die physically as it relates to eternal death, for the sting of death is removed. Though he does die physically, yet he will live eternally by physical resurrection to eternal life.
and...
Spiritual Death
This all of course is assuming that Romans 5 is referring to physical death. It may in fact only refer to spiritual death. It may be saying simply that Adam died spiritually when he sinned and that spiritual death came into the world through his act, but that because of the circumstances Adam's sin brought upon his posterity such spiritual death came upon all men because they also sinned and became spiritually dead. In this case Paul is merely showing that Adam's choice brought about the circumstances where all have chosen like Adam and become dead in sin, as he had. This interpretation is probably the better way to read this passage in view of its context. Romans 6:8, which immediately follows this discussion, deals exclusively with being dead in sin, or being dead to sin by faith in God through the power of the Holy Spirit. There is no reason we should even see Paul to be referring to physical or eternal death at all, since this would be an unnecessary diversion from the thrust of Romans 5:8.
Whichever way we choose to look at it, the spiritual issue is the central. Whether it is physical death or spiritual death referred to, it has only come upon all men in reference to their sin because of the spiritual implications. In no way do we see men guilty for a sin they did not personally, consciously commit, or under any inevitable necessity of sinning. They are justly condemned for their own actions. Adam's sin does have a connection but it is one of being the occasion rather than the cause of men's sin and their consequential experience of death with its spiritual and eternal implications.
Is this the "other perspective" you wanted me to notice, JEE?
I said:
Paul believes that physical death is a MANIFESTATIONAL EFFECT of the condemnation that came upon Adam because of his sin...and upon everyone else THROUGH Adam. Spiritual death was also an effect he describes. The point he makes is that Christ not only deals with the sin and condemnation...but also the MANIFESTATIONAL EFFECTS of those things, death.
Kel's FIRST idea seems much more sound, all things considered. This, combined with 1 Corinthians 15 still make the Paul thing an issue.
Closed-minded? Heh.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/7/2005 3:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
quote:
Every view has problems, Jefscott, but SOME views have many more problems than others. Personally, I feel the literal six-day creation has MAD problems...definitely more than some of the others.
It has MAD EVIDENTIAL problems. So does the hypothesis of evolution. So does the hypothesis of continental drift. So does the hypothesis of the Big Bang. So does EVERY historical scientific paradigm. ALL of us must have faith in the face of the lack of evidence or worse, contradictory evidence. There is NO contradictory evidence to the old-universe, 6-day creation hypothesis - just LACK of evidence. On the other hand, there are boo-coodles of CONTRADICTORY evidence to those other hypotheses!!
quote:
And.. and makes one look horrible apologetically.
I know you are erudite enough to know that there are plenty of believers and unbelievers alike who see YOUR view as apologetically bankrupt! A book which cannot stand or fall on inductive/deductive grounds isn't worth defending. And a book unworthy of defense is unworthy of one's faith. I simply cannot understand this idea that the bible (or some of it) is unfalsifiable - that it is TRUE NO MATTER WHAT HOOPS we have to jump thru to make it work. It's precisely this refusal to subject our theology to sound inductive and deductive principles that causes Christendom to rightly be ridiculed!!
quote:
Here's the thing, though, Jeff. A person can acknowledge that there may have been no Adamic couple...and still exercise faith in the Bible. Seriously. Do things get a little more hairy hermeneutically? Yes. Does it eliminate the ability to believe that it's the Word of God that testifies to redemptive history and Jesus Christ? Nope. It can still be a powerful, transforming love letter from God to us today.
As long as you only care about believing that God redeems, you're right. But I remember Christ saying WHY CALL YE ME LORD, LORD AND DO NOT THE THINGS I SAY! It's about practice, too, Meph. And NOT cafeteriological practice!
quote:
Well, it's not like I'm the only person whose thought this way. As I've mentioned, there's other people (like Emil Brunner) who thought this way. I bet you this. It will be authoritative for my faith and practice and it will be within the bounds of orthodox Christianity as expressed in the ecumenical creeds. Can't get no better than that, huh?
Aye, but Christ said, "things thought highly of by men are an abomination to God." And, "beware when all men speak well of you!" And Paul says, "Where is the scribe of this age?" speaking of the RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS OF HIS DAY!!! There is NOTHING new under the sun. Love ya, though, BRO!!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/7/2005 3:43 PM (GMT -6) | | And on your ideas about Paul relating spiritual truths based upon the Genesis account. You've already stated that Paul may NOT have used the notion of "Adam" in an allegorical way.
quote:
Not saying Paul himself would've thought of it that way; just saying that us interpreting the story of Adam as an allegory doesn't require us to reject Paul's basic line of reasoning in the juxtaposition of Adam and Christ.
So, what you seem to be saying is that even though PAUL may not have thought of Adam from an allegorical point of view, but WE can...and we can use the juxtaposition of Adam and Christ from said allegorical point of view. Sure, we can do that. But to the extent that PAUL held to an actual Adamic couple...which really seems to be the case...we'd still have to say that his was HISTORICALLY wrong, even though he may have been THEOLOGICALLY accurate. (or so we construe) The problem still exists on that issue, with respect to inerrancy...and Paul being wrong. Not to mention the agreed idea about physical death coming through human choices. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/8/2005 9:38 PM (GMT -6) | | http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/temporality_beyond_time.shtml
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/evilandsuffering.shtml
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/animal_death_before_the_fall.shtml
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/creature_mortality.shtml
Thoughts on the arguments presented in some of these writings:
1) Notice how LITTLE they talk about Satan, demons, or the ANGELIC fall...and the implications this may have on the whole conversation. They make a huge deal about how human sin affects things that human beings are responsible for...but say little to nothing about what this would mean with respect to ANGELS possibly granted the delegated authority over nature. (Even though this has been a thought in the Church for centuries!) Considering how important the idea of Satan was to Jesus (as I think Doc argues very well), this is a glaring oversight.
2) They end up saying this, as I see it: there was an actual Adamic couple whose "disfellowship" with God produced the immediate loss of eternal life and the source of their potential immortality. And the actualization of physical death as a result. IN other words...IF everyone had remained obedient to God, then everyone would have had life SUSTAINED by God unto eternal life. (These people obviously believe in original sin from Adam.)
3) It seems to me that an undergirding idea of these people are the notion of the "upward fall" (not necessarily in the Lutheran sense, though) That the creation of this universe was probational FROM THE JUMP and that the pre-fall state was a "good" state...but not PERFECT. This is because it is taken as true that God KNEW the emergence of sin as INEVITABLE...and so created a universe where physical death and deterioration COULD occur. There were "cosmic relational limits" set on this probational period, BECAUSE of the inevitability of sin's emergence. This view says up front that the fall (and later glorification) was ANTICIPATED and PLANNED FOR on a creational level. The perfect state shall be the glorification of all. And this glorified reality will be where redeemed humans will be free from those limits.
From Hugh Ross' Evil and Suffering in Light of God's Love and Power
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/evilandsuffering.shtml
Physical death has a good purpose.
God gave us physical death so that we might have the possibility of being rescued from spiritual death (Gen. 3:22-24).
Death seals and protects the righteousness of the one who chooses God (1 Kings 14:12-13, Is. 57:1-2).
Death limits the degradation and punishment of the one who rejects God (Rom. 1:32).
Death limits the spread of wickedness in society (Gen. 19).
Basically what they end up saying is that the God-sanctioned, purposeful, allowance of death and decay were PROBATIONAL leading unto a time of glorification when the allowance would be removed.
A variation of the "upward fall" idea...based on a ACTUAL Adam and Eve scenario.
4) The argumentation against the vegetarian nature of the Garden existence is weak. VERY weak, IMHO. If you are going to posit that vegetarianism in all animals is an eschatological state (ala Isaiah 11 and 65), meaning that's what God ULTIMATELY wants...and you have what you have in Genesis 1...AND you want to hold to an actual Adamic couple in an actual Garden of Eden...it would seem you'd have an uphill battle. And it is THIS battle that brings the pain. If God truly desired humans AND animals to be herbivores, then wherein the carnivousness? Though the possibly of physical death and deterioration may have to exist, carnivorousness WOULDN'T. So...
5) The argumentation against taking Romans 8 "bondage to decay" as dealing with physical deterioration implying creaturely mortality is kinda weak,too, IMO.
*********************************
I think that the idea Tom and I kicked around earlier would be a good merger...
Death, decay (entropy), carnivorousness, and natural disasters were God-ordained (or God-ACCEPTED, rather) things, given the type of world God wanted to create. These things were ACCEPTABLE ALLOWANCES for God to actualize his creation. Satan just pushed these things BEYOND THE SCOPE of what God wanted to allow for.
It would answer a LOT of stuff...and not need to posit a historical Adam, Eve, and Garden to do it!
*************************
What do y'all think of some of these things?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/9/2005 1:01 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Ok, since I haven’t heard of the theory that there was no actual Adamic couple, but that it’s just an allegory, can someone tell me on what grounds do you come to this conclusion? I’d like to weigh all the arguments and evidence for this before posting any more of my thoughts about this topic. At this point, I still think there’s good support for an actual Adamic couple… so… why do you think there was or was not an Adam and Eve?
(And if you know off the top of your head, when did Brunner start toying with this idea? I want to check the book of letters b/t him and Barth to see what they discussed about this.)
"Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows." - C.S.Lewis, The Great Divorce | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/9/2005 7:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Violin:
Ok, since I haven’t heard of the theory that there was no actual Adamic couple, but that it’s just an allegory, can someone tell me on what grounds do you come to this conclusion? I’d like to weigh all the arguments and evidence for this before posting any more of my thoughts about this topic. At this point, I still think there’s good support for an actual Adamic couple… so… why do you think there was or was not an Adam and Eve?
(And if you know off the top of your head, when did Brunner start toying with this idea? I want to check the book of letters b/t him and Barth to see what they discussed about this.)
Me personally, I come to this conclusion on primarily two "grounds"
1. The literary nature of Genesis account(s). Though the Genesis stories are hard to classify, there's seems to be lots of symbolic and legendary material there. (Barth referred to it as "saga", Brunner referred to it as "myth") Obviously, no credible scholars would say that it's history, in the modern sense. Looking at some of the other creation stories from the ancient Near East (like the Babylonian Enuma Elish and Epic of Atrahasis), we definitely see engagement (though not total agreement, of course) with the then cultural understandings of reality.
2. What we are ever learning about our origins from scientific discovery. Even going from the modest standpoint of just saying that SOME couple during SOME period of hominid development just got endowed with the Imago Dei...and it was from THAT couple that sin (and sin's effect on human existence) came into the picture...the whole thing looks pretty hollow. Violence, hardship, and death has appeared to exist throughout the evolutionary process. Past the Neandertals. Past the homo erectus. To think that, under these circumstances, that ANY being would be able to live a life of UNBROKEN communion with God thereby getting a steady stream of life from some spiritualized "tree of life" (See John C. Munday Jr.'s Creature Mortality: From Creation Or The Fall? http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/creature_mortality.shtml ) is completely ludicrous to me. Really.
And to see what Emil Brunner had to say on this, see his "Man in Revolt". As I remember he's more consistent (in my mind) than Barth in recognizing the importance of Adamic historicity...and Brunner's willing, in part, to use the creation story paradigmatically for human existence as a whole. Top of my head.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/9/2005 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
I could live with that conclusion. Makes sense. Would this merger settle it for you Mephi?
Settles one issue, raises another. I think it works well theologically, as far as consistency, coherence, applicability, and adequacy. (Ever the rationalist, eh, Alfred?)
But...
There's the scripture question. I believe that all the things I noted in my dialogues with Iconoclast hold true. I disagree with Paul (and probably other biblical authors) on their being a historical Adam and Eve. This AUTOMATICALLY sets me against the doctrine of inerrancy. That's been gone. Not like I care THAT much. But the are other ramifications. The slippery slope, like it or not, IS there. For real. Let me just give a contemporary example of where this historicity question leads. With respect to 1 Tim. 2:11-15. A MAJOR reason why complementarians (http://www.cbmw.org) say that women CANNOT be minister is because of the author's ARGUMENTATION FROM CREATION ORDER. From the website...50 most asked questions
39. Paul seems to base the primary responsibility of man to lead and teach on the fact that he was created first, before woman (1 Timothy 2:13). How is this a valid argument when the animals were created before man, but don't have primary responsibility for leading him?
The contextual basis for this argument in the book of Genesis is the assumption throughout the book that the "firstborn" in a human family has the special right and responsibility of leadership in the family. When the Hebrews gave a special responsibility to the "firstborn," it never entered their minds that this responsibility would be nullified if the father happened to own cattle before he had sons. In other words, when Moses wrote this, he knew that the first readers would not lump animals and humans together as equal candidates for the responsibilities of the "firstborn." We shouldn't either.
Once this concern with the priority of animals is out of the way, the question that evangelical feminists must come to terms with is why God should choose to create man and woman sequentially. It won't do just to say, "Sequence doesn't have to mean leadership priority." The question is: "What does this sequence mean?" Why didn't God create them simultaneously out of the same dust? In the context of all the textual pointers assembled by Ray Ortlund Jr. in his chapter on Genesis 1-3 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, we think the most natural implication of God's decision to bring Adam onto the scene ahead of Eve is that he is called to bear the responsibility of headship. That fact is validated by the New Testament when Paul uses the fact that "Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Timothy 2:13) to draw a conclusion about male leadership in the church.
40. Isn't it true that the reason Paul did not permit women to teach was that women were not well-educated in the first century? But that reason does not apply today. In fact, since women are as well-educated as men today, shouldn't we allow both women and men to be pastors?
This objection does not match the data in the Biblical text, for at least three reasons. First, Paul does not give lack of education as a reason for saying that women cannot "teach or have authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12), but rather points back to creation (1 Timothy 2:13-14). It is precarious to build an argument on a reason Paul did not give, instead of the reason he did give.
Oh, yes! John Piper on 1 Timothy...and biblical manhood and womanhood...
Affirming the Goodness of Manhood and Womanhood in All of Life
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/89/062589.html
Now that brings us to verses 13 and 14 of 1 Timothy 2. In these verses Paul gives two reasons for saying that men, and not women, should bear the primary responsibility for leading and teaching the church.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
There are two reasons given here. Let's take them one at a time. First in verse 13, "Adam was formed first, then Eve." The point here is very simple, and we dealt with it already in the message from Genesis 2 and 3 (and handled objections there). Paul sees in God's order of creation a teaching concerning the responsibility of man to be a leader in relationship to woman. God created man first, put him in the garden, gave him the responsibility over the garden and the moral pattern for life in the garden, and then created woman as his partner and assistant to help him carry that responsibility into action.
In other words when Paul teaches that men should bear the primary responsibility for governance and teaching in the church he is basing it not on any culturally temporary situation at Ephesus but on something woven into the fabric of manhood and womanhood by virtue of our creation. Not on the basis of sin, but on the basis of how God wanted it to be before there was any sin — for the good of his people, both women and men.
The second point from verse 14 is this: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Now most commentators in the history of the church have taken this very simply to mean that women are more vulnerable to deception, and therefore should not be given the responsibility of leading and teaching the church. My guess is from what I have read and experienced that women are more vulnerable to deception in some kinds of situations and men are more vulnerable to deception in other kinds of situations.
(Meph's Note: Piper slightly disagrees with this and makes a long explanation...then says below...)
...
I think this is what Paul means in 1 Timothy 2:14. Let me try to paraphrase it to bring this out. "Adam was not deceived (that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver) but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression).
If this is right, then the main point is not that the man is undeceivable or that the woman is more deceivable; the point is that when God's order of leadership is repudiated it brings damage and ruin. Men and women are both more vulnerable to error and sin when they forsake the order that God has intended.
So Paul's argumentation in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is that men ought to bear primary responsibility for leadership and teaching in the church (that is, be the elders): 1) because in creating man first God taught that men should take responsibility for leadership in relation to woman and 2) because the fall of Adam and Eve shows that the neglect of this divine pattern puts men and women in a more vulnerable position and leads to transgression.
Do you see this? It's all based on an ACTUAL Adam and Eve. Much complementarian argumentation is based on it...and a certain view of scripture and its interpretation. And LOTS of people buy this.
Now what if you don't BELIEVE in an actual Adam and Eve. If you don't believe in some primodial choice in some Edenic garden. It has no real compelling power whatsoever...JUST LIKE (I believe) it would have had no power in Paul's day to anyone who DIDN'T KNOW the Creation story with Adam and Eve! This is why I place my stock with the Christians for Biblical Equality!! This is just an example how HOW this issue makes a difference.
But the question can easily be asked:
Well, Meph. You choose not to go along with THAT thing that Paul is saying. What about some other stuff like what he says about homosexuals. Will you buy that now? Or is that wrong, too. Or what about when he talks about how we shall all be changed in a "twinkling of an eye". Is he wrong on THAT, too?
I fully face this question and understand it. I've thought about it. A lot! And for quite some time. I want to quote this following stuff at length, because I think it is an apt statement. I have...ever since I first read it in seminary...
From Millard Erickson's Christian Theology, pp. 252-254. Epistemological Importance of Inerrancy (Please remember Doc and Paul Eddy's argument against this line of reasoning!)
____________
The epistemological question is simply, How do we know? Some assertions in the Bible are at least potentially independently verified or falsified. That is to say, the references to historical and scientific matters can, within the limitations of the historical and scientific methods and of the data available, be found to be true or false. Certain other matters, such as doctrinal statements about the nature of God and the atonement, transcend the realm of our sensory experience. We cannot test their truth or validity empirically. Now if the Bible should prove to be in error in those realms where its claims can be checked, on what possible basis would we logically continue to hold to its dependability in areas where we cannot verify what it says?
...
It is as if we were to hear a lecture on some rather esoteric subject on which we are quite ignorant. The speaker might make many statements that fall outside our experience. We have no way of assessing their truth. What he or she is saying sounds very profound, but it might simply be so much high-flown gibberish. But suppose that for a few minutes the speaker develops one area with which we are well acquainted. Here we detect several erroneous statements. What will we then think about the other statements, whose veracity we cannot check? We will doubtless conclude that there may well be inaccuracies there as well. Credibility, once compromised, is not easily regained or preserved in other matters.
One can, of course, continue to hold to the theological statements by an ad hoc distinction, maintaining that biblical authority applies only to transcendent or doctrinal truths. In so doing, one will have delivered such propositions from possible refutation. But perhaps faith has become nothing more than, to paraphrase Mark Twain, "believing what you don't know ain't so." What is the cost of adopting such an expedient? Immunity from disproof may have been secured at the cost of the meaningfulness of the statement that biblical teachings are true.
...
To the extent that evangelicals abandon the position that everything taught or affirmed by scripture is true, other bases for doctrine will be sought. This might well be through the resurgence of a philosophy of religion, or what is more likely given the current "relational" orientation, through basing theology on behavioral sciences, such as psychology of religion. But whatever form such an alternative grounding takes, the list of tenets will probably shrink, for it is difficult to establish the Trinity or the virgin birth of Christ on either philosophical argument or the dynamics of interpersonal relationships.
____________________
I remember reading this kinda soberly in school. Cause I knew he was right. The slippery slope IS there. Doc'stance (as I think he'd agree) is MAINLY grounded on a combination of historiography and personal experience of God. His belief in the truth of the Bible comes from 1) his personal experience with Christ and 2) the historical reasons for believing the Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God. He's said more than once that his bibliology follows his CHRISTOLOGY insofar as he gives authority to scripture on the basis of him believing that Jesus is the Son of God. If he didn't have that, it's probably wouldn't be very easy for him to hold a high view of scripture, I'm guessing. He doesn't buy the apriori view of scripture being inerrant as a deduction from God not being able to lie or err!
I'm with Doc on all that. But...
We differ in some of our approach some serious ways. For one, I try to take seriously what it would MEAN for Jesus to be fully human...and what that could mean. Did Jesus really grow "in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men?" (Luke 2:52) Did Jesus really LEARN just like all of us do? Did Jesus pretty much know and believe what his cultural peers would have at that time? If so, what implications does that have? Obviously, people have already thought about this...The Chicago Inerrancy Statement says...
Article XV.
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching
of the Bible about inspiration.
We deny that Jesus' teaching about scripture may be dismissed by
appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity
Yeah. They saw it coming. To say that Jesus was fully human and would be no LESS ignorant of certain things than other people of his day and culture has interesting implications...especially if one were to talk about Jesus believing in an Adamic couple or in the actuality of Jonah being swallowed by a big fish! We'd have the same issue we now have with Paul and his veracity.
What has Doc said to this? Not much. Just something like this:
Well, Jesus being the Son of God and the express representation of God HAS to have some cash value. Some of that cash value is that when Jesus speaks of spiritual or heavenly things (like the existence of Satan and demons or scripture having authority), he's speaking truth because he IS God.
I remember thinking...how does this NOT fall into what Erickson said. So I believe Jesus when he talks about "mansions in heaven" and stuff like that...but when he when he refers to the Creation story in an ACTUAL MANNER to discuss God's displeasure with divorce, I'm supposed to be able to call that into question?? Or just say that Jesus' theology is right...even though HISTORICALLY, he may be wrong???
Mark 10:1-9
Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “What did Moses command you?” he replied. They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
(Parallel verse in Mat. 19:1-8)
See the picture? Feel the pain? Here's why my fetish for consistency and coherency is gonna end up getting me in hot water BIIIIIG time if I'm not careful. If it hasn't already. [img]/beta/emoticons/skull.gif[/img]
So, anyway, Selah. Nope...there's not ultimate closure for me yet.
Heh.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/9/2005 8:45:04 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/9/2005 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 187 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:58 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|