Hello Mike
> AT wrote: Nowhere in Scripture, including Rom 5:19, is there
> any clear
> suggestion that "humans in the image of God" existed prior to Adam.
>
> I see a clear suggestion of this in Gen. 1:26,27 which I
> believe describes
> God's creation of the human race long before His creation of
> Adam. I also see
> a clear suggestion of it in Romans 5:13.
AT: It isn't at all obvious to me, unless you read Gen Ch1 and Ch2
chronologically, and as separate events. This is a major theological
innovation, and as far as I know, have never been seriously proposed, let
alone accepted.
> AT wrote: one cannot begin by drawing a scientifc conclusion
> ... and then
> try to see if the Bible will somehow fit into that understanding.
>
> We have done just that when we have accepted the conclusions
> of science
> regarding the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and
> not vise versa
> (Remember the story of the Church vs. Galileo?),
AT: The issue of the movement of the planets was and is a scientific
question, and was not part of theological doctrine. On the other hand, the
creation of humans in the *image of God*, and the spiritual role of Adam is
deeply theological and has nothing to do with science. I think you are
mixing categories here.
> when we have
> accepted the
> conclusions of science regarding the fact that the "days" of
> creation were
> not 24 hour "days," and when we have accepted the conclusions
> of science
> regarding the fact that the flood of Noah's day was not
> global. The most
> simple reading of the Bible alone certainly seems to say
> something else in
> all of these matters. That being the case, why is it wrong to
> see if the
> Bible may actually say something else about human origins
> than a very simple
> reading of it would seem to say?
AT: I think one needs to make the distinction between theological statements
and descriptions of the natural world, when reading the bible. Sure, we
would try to match our interpretation of the bible to current scientific
knowledge as far as statements about the natural world is concerned, but the
issue we are dealing with here (the origin of humans bearing the imago Dei)
is theological.
> AT wrote: I think you have made a critical mistake here. The
> "law" that is
> referred to is not the command to Adam not to eat of the
> fruit. Paul, as a
> Jewish Rabbi, is talking about the law of Moses.
>
> Was he? How then do you explain the fact that Paul said the
> sin that was in
> the world before the law was given was not taken into
> account? If Paul was
> there referring to the law of Moses then he must have been
> saying that God
> did not count Adam's sin against him. Is that what you
> believe Paul was
> saying? For Adam's sin was committed before the law of Moses
> was given.
AT: One needs to begin by understanding the flow of Pauls' argument in
Romans.
Paul's argument since Romans 2 has been that the law, good as it is, is
powerless to save the Jews. He take pains to point out that Jews are not
exempt from the power of sin because Adam is the common ancestor of both
Gentiles and Jews, and therefore, just as much in need of salvation.
So instead of being guaranteed salvation, the giving of the law places
Israel in a uniquely precarious situation spiritually. However, in 5:13,
Paul is saying that sin continue to have effects even when Israel did not
know they were in sin, but once given the law, Israel is held to a higher
standard of acountability because Israel now know better than the ignorant
Gentile nations. In a sense, the law makes Israel more, not less, to blame
when it fails to keep the law. That is why Paul earlier issued the warning
that the wrath of God comes upon "the Jew first", then the Gentile (Romans
2:9).
> AT wrote: If the church could have been wrong on her
> understanding of
> humanity and how death came about, then the church could have
> also been wrong
> on a number of other doctrines. Where is the Holy Spirit who
> will lead in all
> truth as Jesus promised?
>
> He is with us all continuing to lead us into all truth. But
> He is taking His
> time, giving every generation of Christians all the truth it
> needs and all it
> has been able to bear.
AT: So when I firmly disagree with you on a fundamental doctrine, who is the
Holy Spirit guiding? This generation of Christians is more splintered than
any other prior generations. Whose side is the Holy Spirit on?
Even today in this age of science, the traditional understanding is still
the most widely accepted one. Are you saying that the majority of
Christendom is wrong on such a fundamental doctrine because the Holy Spirit
thinks that we are not able to bear the truth? I don't get it.
Sincerely puzzled,
Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 25 2002 - 12:45:56 EDT