 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
|  Posted 3/30/2005 4:50 PM (GMT -6) |   | | I want to move from the "bible" thread over here (and not keep taking up space over there)...and I'll keep this really simple...
Can anyone give me some very good reasons why I should continue believing in a HISTORICAL human fall? Specifically a "fall" where ALL HUMANITY falls into universal peril of "death" (and possibly, the more direct tyrannical influence of Satan directly because of "one man's sin" (as Paul would say?)
I have no problems believing in the fall of Satan. It's part and parcel of what makes the warfare worldview work essentially. But I'm having SIGNIFICANT problems with the human fall as described by Paul.
I won't give try to argue against nuthin'. Seriously. I just want the BEST POSSIBLE REASONS to believe. If you have any good books or articles you want to suggest, please do so. If you'd like to summarize, that'd be great! I promise that I will only ask questions of clarification. Nothing more.
So, help me out. Give me the BEST STUFF you have, please. This is serious.
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/30/2005 4:09:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/30/2005 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | | surely the best reason to believe it is that one believes it is the teaching of the Bible | | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 3/30/2005 5:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Be perfect.
Don't ever covet or lust in your heart.
We will be this way in our glorified bodied, never to even covet in our hearts again.
The best way to understand how far we fell is to try to return. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/30/2005 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
I should add that my concept of Romans 5 is a non-ontological hamartiology. If we examine our blood, we will not find bits and pieces of contamination or of sin. If we examine our spirits, we will not find wrinkled-up, dead and withered spirits that suddenly get rejuvinated upon our getting saved.
Romans 5 (dang, I hate it when I'm rushed) is all about Adam UNIQUE sin how that sin forfeited his position; Adam's offspring follow into the same kingdom Adam is in in, and without even a say about it (our sin is that we are already in a no-win situation and will act out in sin accordingly). The world's kingdoms have fallen into the hands and under the influence of another. We, unfortunately find ourselves in the same shipwreck. And lest we think that we wouldn't have done what Adam did, we are only displaying our arrogance; for if Adam could, and did, fall in a non-hostile enviroment, what in the world would make us think that we, as sinners, would have shown him up?
Got to go,
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/30/2005 8:45 PM (GMT -6) | | This was on the Bible thread...but I don't want to continue bogging that one down with my issues. So I'm placing this here!
---------------------
Starkman:
That Adam, right off the bat, screws it up and misses the boat proves that if Adam were not to have sinned, anyone else down the line could have, and probably would have. But...if a reciprocal loving relationship, being constituted by the freedom to choose to love, is qualified by this pre-Fall environment, is this "setup" really a setup? Isn't "setup" IN THE THEOLOGY OF THE TEXT seen as, perhaps, an inevitable, but not a desired one? Isn't "setup" here more of "In view of the outcome freedom to choose affords in establishing loving relationship, there is no other way"? And if universal reconciliation is true, then (with the exceptions of the warfare we are thrust into for the time being), the reward well outweighs the inevitable, but ONLY because there was no other way. (Otherwise, unnecessary exposure to the posibility of evil via setup has no redeeming agent, despite the reward.)
Right. Perhaps set-up wasn't the right word. What you are describing here (with the inevitability and all) is what I had in mind. God wasn't really suprised by what happened. It matches well with the warfare worldview, doesn't it? Good clarification, man.
***************************
Starkman:
Now, I know you're working through all of this, Meph, but at the moment, what do you have as an explanation for our current condition if you chuck the Genesis record as completely unsatisfactory? It seemed that you were suggesting that Satan was given the authority/power to come on down to earth, make himself at home and create a living hell since the creation (the evolutionary process of cell to ape (or whatever flavor of evolution to which you hold?). Are we really to toss the whole Adamic event out the door and relegate Paul's adherence to SOME sort of historicity for the event as rubbish? The theology has GOT to have some bearing here, and it's bearing has got to be in some context that will transfer admirably to the naked truth of the text as we have it Hey, I can appreciate your struggle, but man, Meph, we're messing with the heart of the whole da-gone thing here. If we can't trust God to have given us something better to work with than Paul's false premises and Genesis' all-around fictional and completely non-historical picture, what in the world DID happen? . Otherwise...well, I'm lost then. I simply cannot think of a way to make sense out of the theology in a completely inaccurate historical account of Genesis and in an abstract leftover. I'm willing to try, I suppose.
I had a chance to talk to a theologically-minded acquaintance of mine earlier today about this. My idea was one could easily posit that Satan's fall is historical...and that insofar as human beings (individuals and collectively) buy into satanic lies about reality, they place themselves under the thrall of the kingdom of darkness...perhaps from the very beginning. It goes along the lines of much of what you said earlier in this thread. It would affirm and explain our current condition. We can affirm the Imago Dei and all that. BUT...there would be NO NEED to claim that a SINGLE ACT OF SIN of a primal couple directly precipitated universal peril dealing with death (spiritual or otherwise) being passed down to ALL human descendants.
This person admitted that it IS workable from a strictly warfare worldview perspective...but this would directly contradict what Paul is affirming in Romans and 1 Corinthians. For not only does Paul obviously believe in a HISTORICAL Adam (as did Jesus and other people of the Pharisaical persuasion of the time)...but he also made a point about how some form of death came through Adam's sin. So...what did it come down to, after all was said and done? "Well, which battle is easier to fight? Believing in a historical human fall...or saying that a biblical author is wrong about it?"
I was like...well, damn. So, it comes down to politics again. Damn.
Actually, I guess it's more than that. Just like you say, Starkman. To say that Paul may be wrong on his theological application of HIS belief in a literal Adam would be too much for some to bear. It's not like we couldn't get some valuable truth from the Creation stories from a mythological point of view. It's relatively easy to get a "teaching point"from the early Genesis stories. That's not the problem. The problem is ultimately with trusting the divine witness in the Bible. If the Bible can be inaccurate about something as important as HOW death actually came to human beings, then what the HECK, right?? Plus Jesus' reference to the Adamic couple in his teaching on marriage. And the 1 Timothy author's reference when dealing with the women speaking in church thing. How deep WOULD it go, huh?
Sigh...
I guess it would just be easier for me to just believe in the historical human fall and the UNIVERSAL INFECTION of humanity through that "one man's sin" Just to simplify things.
Well, hey, there's a POSSIBILITY it's true. It's possible that there WAS a literal Adamic couple. Just a really BRIEF edenic period. It's possible that this primal couple broke SOME kind of relationship with God...and brought UNIVERSAL INFECTION upon all their descendents. And of course there'd be no proof of this BECAUSE it was so brief. Hey, it's possible.
Darnit. I hate playing all these games.
Whatever.
...
What am I doing? I'm Sir Mephistopheles, the Eternal One. I'm NOT playing these games. Heh.
I DON'T believe in some corrupted nature universally placed upon all humanity because of the stupid decision of some ignorant primatives.
I DO believe that insofar as our human predecessors built their self-understandings and cultural norms on satanic falsehoods and PASSED THOSE ON to their descendants, they provided a context that 1) gave Satan more and more ground and 2) virtually ensured that ONLY divine grace would be able to bring us into the light of God's salvific truth.
I DON'T believe Paul was theologically correct when he claimed that death (either spiritual or physical) came to all of us directly from Adam's act of sin.
I DO believe that Paul was theologically on track when he claimed that the universality of Christ's elimination of the sin problem was on par to Paul's understanding of the universality of Adam's mess-up.
I DON'T believe in biblical inerrancy.
I DO believe that God can and has used the Bible to infallibly accomplish what God wants to accomplish.
Here I stand. I can do no other...right now. Heh. 
But hey, YOU people can help me. I know you are mounting TONS of stuff to show me to help the error of my ways, right? It's not all gonna boil down to "either you believe Paul or you don't", right? It's NOT gonna turn into some forced fideism for me...RIGHT??? I'll keep looking at what's said.
"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) : 3/30/2005 8:03:47 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/30/2005 9:10 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I didn't read any farther than your question:
Mephi: Can anyone give me some very good reasons why I should continue believing in a HISTORICAL human fall?
Tom: Sure.
P1: Humans are fallen
P2: Humans were not always fallen
Therefore: Humans fell
Next? Post Edited (TGB) : 3/30/2005 10:09:07 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/30/2005 9:19 PM (GMT -6) | |
Reader said...
Be perfect.
Don't ever covet or lust in your heart.
We will be this way in our glorified bodied, never to even covet in our hearts again.
The best way to understand how far we fell is to try to return.
AMEN
How about God's Earthly Renewal Plan? Not just the resurrection of a new glorified body, but of a new universe, a new Earth and Heaven.
Rev. 22:3 (NRSV)
Nothing accursed will be found there any more. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him;
God has never given up on his original creation. Let’s not overlook the entire biblical vocabulary that makes it so clear. Reconcile, Redeem, Recover, Return, Renew, Regenerate and Resurrect. The prefix of each word is RE, suggestion a return to an original condition that was ruined or lost.
2 Peter 3:3-7 (NRSV)
First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!" They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.
Shalom,
Mark
 "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/30/2005 9:41:28 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/3/2005 9:19 PM (GMT -6) | | John: I don't see any good reason, apart from our modern (scientific) mindset, to say "Paul believed in a literal historical Adam." Just because he used the creation story to theologize does not, to my mind, require us to believe that he necessarily believed in a "literal historical Adam." What am I missing?
Jeff: To my mind, the argument works like this. I don't see any good reason, apart from our modern insistence that there WAS no historical Adam, to conclude that Luke was being figurative in his genealogy from Christ back to Adam. Consequently, why would I believe Paul thought any different? It takes ASSUMPTION to believe otherwise. That's why even Meph doesn't debate the point, as far as I can tell from his posts.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 4/3/2005 9:51:30 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/4/2005 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...John: I don't see any good reason, apart from our modern (scientific) mindset, to say "Paul believed in a literal historical Adam." Just because he used the creation story to theologize does not, to my mind, require us to believe that he necessarily believed in a "literal historical Adam." What am I missing? Jeff: To my mind, the argument works like this. I don't see any good reason, apart from our modern insistence that there WAS no historical Adam, to conclude that Luke was being figurative in his genealogy from Christ back to Adam. Consequently, why would I believe Paul thought any different? It takes ASSUMPTION to believe otherwise. That's why even Meph doesn't debate the point, as far as I can tell from his posts.
Hi Jeff,
With all due respect, bro, I does not seem the least bit reasonable to interpret what is obviously epic poetry meant to teach moral values in the same way one would interpret a modern history or science textbook. Consequently, my faith is not based on whether or not Genesis 1-3 is literal historical and scientific truth, and I honestly don't get why anyone would think that the human authors of that story would have meant it in the same way we understand literal history or science today.
Seeing it from this perspective, it presents no problem at all for me to understand Paul as using a well-known piece of epic poetry to do precisely what the main point of scripture is -- reveal profound spiritual truth about the origin of the world. But to insist upon a literal Adam & Eve misses the point of the story entirely, just like insisting upon a literal historical Job misses the whole point of the Book of Job.
Blessings,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/4/2005 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | |
jefscott said...
It doesn't seem the least bit reasonable to me that Luke would trace a genealogy back to Adam if he didn't think he was a historical character. Not saying he didn't - just don't see what the point would be. Can you help me on that one?
John replies: Judging by the tone of your last post, I doubt you really want to discuss this, and even more thoroughly doubt you are really interested in my views, but in any case, I'll hazard a reply... No hard feelings on my part if you don't like what I write, I promise.
Scholars I've read have noted that it was not uncommon for geneaologies back then to leave out people who weren't considered noteworthy. Also, the purpose of the geneaologies was meant to establish Jesus' messianic bloodline. It appears to me that the geneaologies do precisely this.
Jeff said: Moreover, I don't see how it's so obvious that Genesis was ONLY meant to teach moral values.
John's reply: I didn't mean to imply that Genesis was ONLY meant to teach moral values. Actually, what I said was that the first three chapters of Genesis are in the form of epic poetry, the point of which genre is to teach moral/spiritual values, which is precisely what Paul said "all scripture" was designed for.
Jeff: And why have MILLIONS of people thought otherwise?
John: So the truth of a thing is now decided by how many people believe it? Looks like all us non-Catholics are in deep trouble, if that's the case.
Jeff: Are we all blooming idiots?
John: Not necessarily.  Honestly, though, who said anything about anyone being blooming idiots, Jeff? I don't believe I ever did.
Blessings,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/4/2005 7:29 PM (GMT -6) | | John replies: Judging by the tone of your last post, I doubt you really want to discuss this, and even more thoroughly doubt you are really interested in my views, but in any case, I'll hazard a reply... No hard feelings on my part if you don't like what I write, I promise.
Jeff: No hard feelings on my part, either, bro.
John: Scholars I've read have noted that it was not uncommon for geneaologies back then to leave out people who weren't considered noteworthy. Also, the purpose of the geneaologies was meant to establish Jesus' messianic bloodline. It appears to me that the geneaologies do precisely this.
Jeff: Indeed. It seems like a BLOOD line to Adam. I don't see how that contradicts my point at all.
John: I didn't mean to imply that Genesis was ONLY meant to teach moral values. Actually, what I said was that the first three chapters of Genesis are in the form of epic poetry, the point of which genre is to teach moral/spiritual values, which is precisely what Paul said "all scripture" was designed for.
Jeff: But John, if it's not ONLY to teach moral values, WHY would you think Luke DISbelieved in an historical Adam? Meph, Keith, and Scott have no problem believing Luke probably believed he was historical (even though they DON'T). What's your problem believing he did?
John: So the truth of a thing is now decided by how many people believe it?
Jeff: Bro, it's either OBVIOUS that Luke deemed Adam as non-historical or it ISN'T OBVIOUS. If it's NOT obvious, then I'm interested in why you think not. If it IS obvious, then we millions ARE blooming idiots. Don't really see any way out of it. Only idiots can't see the obvious. And, really, I'm fine with you thinking I'm a blooming idiot. No hard feelings AT ALL. Infer no tone here.
ob·vi·ous adj. Easily perceived or understood; quite apparent.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 4/4/2005 7:35:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/4/2005 7:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
Please read my posts more carefully. You have misrepresented what I have said twice now, even after I tried to make it clear that I did not say Genesis was ONLY meant to communicate moral/spiritual values. What IS obvious is that the first three chapters of Genesis are epic poetry in literary genre, and to try to impose modern historical or scientific exactness to such a class of literature is just plain absurd.
Since you insist on using the term, "idiot," which I don't agree with using at all in your case (perhaps mine--my wife sometimes says I'm retarded), I will respectfully bow out of this conversation.
I no longer feel as if I have to have all the answers to every possible question.
Sincere blessings to you,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/4/2005 7:36:08 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/5/2005 6:45 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
I went back over your posts last night to see where I misunderstood you. It seems you were at one point just stating your view and I mistook those comments as arguments against my post. My fault, and I apologize.
But you had originally said, "I don't see ANY good reason, apart from our modern (scientific) mindset, to say "Paul believed in a literal historical Adam." That sounded as if you were saying there were ONLY BAD reasons to think Paul believed in an historical Adam. My only point was to make a case for Luke believing in an historical Adam (perhaps my reasons are bad, but I would appreciate some help if so) and then use that as circumstantial evidence for Meph's position. Namely, that since other Jews of NT times believed in an historical Adam, and seemingly so did Luke, there is a least THAT ONE reason (as bad as you may deem it) for suspecting that Paul was no different.
And I guess my question is, why is it any more problematic for Paul to have been wrong about Adam's historicity than for Luke to have been wrong about it?
Again, I apologize for misunderstanding where you were going. And my only point about the millions was that millions (I may be overstating the numbers here ) believed Luke took Adam as a historical person BEFORE our modern scientific mindset.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/5/2005 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
Above you said,
"It doesn't seem the least bit reasonable to me that Luke would trace a genealogy back to Adam if he didn't think he was a historical character. Not saying he didn't - just don't see what the point would be."
It doesn't seem the least bit reasonable to suggest Luke needed to prove Jesus decended from Adam! (I mean, when's the last time you had to prove, via geneology, that you decended from Adam?) To prove decendency from David, perhaps, but from Adam?
Geneologies demonstrate something important about tribal promise, inheritance and things of those natures. Further, with the tremendous gaps that scholars say exist in the geneologies, Luke has hardly proved to his reader or lead him to believe that these geneologies "are really, really true, most excellent Theophilus!" It doesn't mean we are to assume they are not. That simply isn't the importance of the geneology (to prove that someone decended from Adam!).
Matthew's geneology is also something that I think is not to "prove" that Jesus decended from Abraham. It isn't that there isn't "proof" in Matthew's geneology, but Matthew is out to "prove" something bigger than that; Jesus was the fulfillment (evidenced by the fact that Matthew uses that term more than the other writers combined, if I'm not mistaken) and completion of God's promises TO abraham. Matthew is an apologist NOT to prove facts, but to substantiate the emergence of the One who is Israel's great hope. The geneology to Abraham is to say, "As was promised to our father Abraham, look! He has arrived!"
Finally, it isn't that there aren't "facts" found in the Gospels, or the whole Bible itself, but these "facts" are not meant to be conveyed to us in the modern mathematical, scientifical and astronomical sense to which we moderns appeal to the usage of data from these disciplines. The writers of the Bible were interested in ultimately saying something about the God in whom they believed. Facts, history, prophecy, apocalyptic were all means to communicate their concern about who God is and what He is doing. Luke and Matthew's geneology are clear examples, I believe, of just one of many techniques used back then to make the connection for the reader.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/6/2005 5:38 PM (GMT -6) | | | Rom 5 compares Jesus to Adam. If you are a universalist, this gives you the oh-so-hairy problem of universal condemnation apart from Christ. But check out 7:9. Verses 8-11 can be interpreted in a miriad of ways. (I hope I spelled miriad right) I take it the way I do because I think it fits with an understanding of the bible that takes it as a whole. I know plenty will disagree with me, but here it is: sin does not equal guilt/condemnation/hell. There is a time of innocence in the human life. Sin may be in me from the start, but I am not accomplice to it until I choose to be.
So back to 5. Here's how I see it: In Adam sin entered the world. This results in death of all and our wills' tendency to evil. In Jesus righteousness entered the world. This results in resurrection of all (but not neccessarily univeral salvation) and our wills being called to God despite themselves. Both acts leave room for personal choice.
I can understand how a universalist will see difficulties with the effectiveness of Christ's act being compared to the effectiveness of Adam's. Maybe you can see it on your own terms. Adam brings sin to the world that allows for freedom in each particular choice but makes freedom impossible in the long run. I don't know. Maybe not. I'm a mathematician (sort of), so I know that multiplying non-zero probabilities will never give a zero product but will only approach it. It doesn't appear to me that neccesary universalism in Adam or Christ can allow for freedom.
Hope this helps some. 
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/10/2005 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: I DO believe that insofar as our human predecessors built their self-understandings and cultural norms on satanic falsehoods and PASSED THOSE ON to their descendants, they provided a context that 1) gave Satan more and more ground and 2) virtually ensured that ONLY divine grace would be able to bring us into the light of God's salvific truth.
I DON'T believe Paul was theologically correct when he claimed that death (either spiritual or physical) came to all of us directly from Adam's act of sin.
markporter: Hang on a bit Mephi, that first one is sounding very close to the idea of a historical fall to me.
It's as close as I can come. It doesn't have anything to do with physical death. And it really doesn't have to do with "spiritual death", more than it has to do with human participation, internalization, and socio-cultural promulgation of life-denying paradigms that stemmed from Satan's original corrupting influence on things.
The reason why it's important to have at least this is because there MUST be some way to talk about divine grace and it's indispensible activity in bringing us to God.
Where homo sapiens sapiens have always participated, internalized, and promulgated life-denying paradigms from the beginning, Christ has not only shifted our paradigms, but defeated Satan and sin itself.
"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 | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/11/2005 9:57 AM (GMT -6) | | | The reason why it's important to have at least this is because there MUST be some way to talk about divine grace and it's indispensible activity in bringing us to God.
This objection is always a curiousity to me. Even a semi-Pelagian like myself (or a full Pelagian, for that matter), would never deny that God's grace is indispensible in bringing us to God. Even Adam needed the keeping grace of God to stay in his original state of innocence. Indeed, he would have been utterly dependent upon God's grace for every moment of his finite existence.
Some folks seem to think that Adam was somehow automatically holy by virtue of some intrinsic holiness he had received. If so, he never could have sinned.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/11/2005 10:00:27 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 4/13/2005 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Meph,
Meph: This person admitted...
Bryan: Theologically-minded aquaintenance? Why do I get the feeling we all know this person? Oh, well, I suppose it's not important.
Meph: For not only does Paul obviously believe in a HISTORICAL Adam (as did Jesus and other people of the Pharisaical persuasion of the time)...
Bryan: Okay, Meph, I understand not completely trusting Paul; he was after all, a regular guy, so to speak, and could've gotten a few things wrong. Personally, I'd say I believe him, but that's okay becuz i understand why you don't. there is really nothing to tell us that NT scripture is "god-breathed" (whatever that might mean) apart from one document IN THE NT itself, not exactly the best reason for believing something. However, if i understand you correctly, you are also questioning JESUS on his beliefs? How come? I mean, isn't this taking the whole kenotic thing a bit far?
Meph: I DON'T believe in biblical inerrancy. I DO believe that God can and has used the Bible to infallibly accomplish what God wants to accomplish.
Bryan: Okay, Meph...I should say that I think you are an extremely lucid thinker. Here's my question: How do you determine what you want to put your money on in the bible. If I were to employ a Meph Hermeneutic, what would it be? I struggle a lot with the inspiration issue, not so much the inerracy issue -- in my mind these are separate; i can affirm the latter, but get scared and hide under my bed when we start talking about the former -- and i think it would be helpful to know the measuring stick of someones else who struggles with these issues. for a straight down the line evangelical, it would just be inspiration/inerracncy (most do not separate them as i do), but what do you do if this isn't it? do you have anything at all to hold on to, Meph?
bryan | | Back to Top | | |
| 26 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:10 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 |
|
|