Adrian Teo wrote:
........................
> The doctrine of Original Sin not only
> requires that we are morally accountable, but also affirms the concept of
> the unity of humankind - that it is through the sin of one that we are all
> fallen. IMHO, to deny the historicity of the one Adam is to make non-sense
> of the doctrine.
Again, this is an great overstatement. In Romans 1-3 Paul speaks
strongly about the universal
sinfullness of all human beings with no reference to the first humans.
But let me try to shift the discussion somewhat. (I say "try"
advisedly. Past experience on this list, & in the ASA generally, has shown me
that any attempt to deal with theological issues that people here perceive as
"denominational" is generally avoided. That is especially the case when
sacraments are involved.)
I wonder how many Evangelicals who use arguments about "original sin"
against evolution &/or for an "historical Adam" really hold a doctrine of
original sin like that formulated by Augustine & followed in the Augustinian
tradition. I would address this question to all who are concerned about these
matters (& not just Adrian).
Do you believe that original sin actually _is_ sin which is deserving of
eternal condemnation?
Do you believe that because original sin is truly sin in infants, infant
baptism is an appropriate remedy?
If your answer "no" to either or both of these questions then you need
to state clearly what you _do_ mean by original sin, because it isn't the
meaning of the Augustinian tradition. Until these differences are clear, we're
talking about different things when we discuss original sin in connection with
creation & evolution issues.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 13:45:43 EST