Hi Mike, you wrote:
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk
>I think if you read a few Bible commentaries you will find that most
>Christian scholars understand Paul's words as I do. God has given all people
>moral consciences, the redeemed and the unredeemed.
We all sin and come short of the glory of God, both the redeemed and the
unredeemed.
>Matthew Henry wrote: "As many as have sinned without law shall perish without
>law." (Rom.2:12) - "That is the unbelieving Gentiles, who had no other guide
>but natural conscience."
>Eerdmans Bible commentary says, "All are accountable to God for judgment,
>whether like the Jews they possess the Mosaic law or, like the Gentiles, the
>'natural' law written on the conscience of men who are all made after the
>divine image. ... Every man has a conscience, a moral consciousness."
Jer. 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:
who can know it?"
>You wrote: I don't pretend to know when God decided to give man a spirit
>capable of redemption or condemnation. My point was that if all mankind from
>let's say 1 million years ago had this spirit, it would seem pointless to
>wait until only 6,000 years ago to give them any means of redemption.
>No more pointless than to give all people from the time of Adam "a spirit
>capable of redemption or condemnation," if that is what you believe God did.
Of course it is more pointless, it is a much, much longer period of time.
>For from that time forward God has not provided the vast majority of people
>"any means of redemption." After all, only a small fraction of people who
>have lived since the time of Adam have ever had an opportunity to come to
>know the means of salvation God made available to Adam, to his descendants,
>and the means of salvation He now makes known in the Christian world.
Agreed. Christ said "go into all the world." Have we done it? We
had a 500 year
head start on the Muslims. You would think that would have been long enough.
>You wrote: Now there was a time God "winked at" those sins, but to contend
>that every mammalian biped with an opposable thumb and a cranial capacity of
>1400 - 1600 CCs was given a[n im]mortal soul certainly is without scriptural
>support.
>
>You seem to be saying on the one hand that Adam was not the first man, but on
>the other hand that he was the first man. For the possession of an immortal
>soul is how virtually all theologians define the difference between man and
>beast.
Reread my book. Anthropologists also think they know the difference between
man and animals. Do you think theologians and anthropologists agree?
>You wrote: If we wish to establish a time when all mankind were possessed
>with "souls," any time selected is purely arbitrary.
>
>True, but the fact that the Bible does not provide us with a date for the
>time God first created man, by then starting to give all highly evolved
>primates "souls," does not indicate that He did not at some point in the
>distant past do just that.
Could be. How did He start?
> Not any more so anyway than the fact that many,
>yourself included, do not believe that the Bible provides us with a date for
>the time God created Adam, and then gave him a soul. Yet, without what you
>believe to be a firm Bible provided date for God's giving Adam a soul, you
>still believe God did so.
Is this an example of what my English teacher called a "dangling participle"?
>You wrote: the only question as far as "souls" is concerned is when man had
>them. ... I presume man at 7,000 to 6,000 years ago were so possessed. If
>not Adam would have been wasted on them. Why offer them a glimmer of the
>hope of salvation if they had nothing to save?
>
>You seem to be saying that God began to give people immortal souls at the
>time of Adam because prior to that time people had no one to tell them of the
>way God was from then on providing for their salvation. You evidently see
>Adam as the one God had intended to use as his messenger to bring His message
>of salvation to all men. But,as I understand it, you believe Adam failed to
>prove himself worthy of filling the role God had planned for him. If this is
>your understanding of Adam I think it is a misunderstanding.
We understand differently.
>Maybe you have explained this to others here before. But I don't get it. Why
>couldn't God use Adam as a sinner to spread His gospel? He uses us.
Oh, he could. In the legend of Adapa, who I believe is a parallel of Adam, he
is described as "blameless," "clean of hands", "observer of laws." But the
moral law required righteous living and animal sacrifice, a standard
that persisted
until Christ taught us redemption by the grace of God.
But we don't have enough in Genesis to tell us what Adam may have tried to do
after he sinned. I can't presume that Adam became a preacher.
>It seems to me that such an argument (that God began giving all people souls
>at the time of Adam) would only be valid if you maintained that, had Adam not
>failed, he would have been able to reach people with their newly received
>souls who were then living in places like North America and Australia with
>his message of salvation.
You put words in my mouth. I don't know when "God began giving all people
souls." It isn't spelled out in Scripture. However, the old
covenant gospel of God
loves you, live a righteous life would have spread from Eridu just as the new
covenant of forgiveness spread from Jerusalem. But remember, there is hardly
any Scripture to go on.
> How would he have done that?
By ankle express, just as Paul did it.
> Or maybe you think God only then gave souls to people living near Eden.
I still don't presume to know.
>You wrote: So I would say two things would not make sense to me. I don't
>believe God would send Adam into a world where men and animals were no
>different.
>
>He didn't.
Well, that's a relief.
>You wrote: And I don't think God would condemn to hell or welcome into His
>heavenly kingdom all the hominids from hundreds of thousands of years who
>lived prior to the time of Adam, which is what your methodology seems to
>imply.
>
>Why would he not do that if they had been men with souls just like us?
So what would be your assumption for men with souls who lived for a hundred
thousand years before Adam, thumb up or thumb down?
>If God began giving highly evolved primates "souls" say 100,000
>years ago, how would
>His giving those preadamic men souls be any different than His giving souls
>to billions of people for thousands of years since the time of Adam who God
>has also never given a chance to hear His plan for their salvation?
"Go ye" is what was commanded. Did they? Do we?
>Jesus said that everyone who has ever lived and died will receive a
>resurrection. At that time He said He will judge those He resurrects by their
>works. Possibly the way those people lived their lives will provide Christ
>with evidence of whether they would have accepted Him if they had had the
>chance to do so. I don't know. But it seems to me that God can judge the
>souls of preadamic men who never heard the gospel in exactly the same way
>that He judges postadamic men who never heard the gospel.
Sounds like a good plan to me. I was kind of leaning toward reincarnation, but
certainly that would work.
>Dick, I've learned a lot from you.
Bless you, Mike, you say the nicest things.
>One thing I know. I have never learned anything from a person who thinks
>exactly as I do. Because of that I thank God there are people who don't. I
>hope you feel the same.
Actually, I'm learning that I should have been a better teacher.
Yours in Christ,
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 30 2002 - 11:37:02 EDT