>Here is a quick summary of how many TEs understand this point:
>--Sin makes us spiritually dead in this life.
>--Sin robs us of the hope of resurrection in the new creation.
> (Physical death is our enemy BECAUSE of sin.
> "The sting of death is sin.")
>Christ conquers both.
Do they also agree that Christians are spiritually alive in this life,
and that the remaining obstacle to be reckoned with is how the Gospel
deals with physical death? My impression is that TEs see the Gospel as
emphasizing salvation from spiritual death while agreeing to disagree
with the traditional orthodox view that physical death is also the
result of sin and Adam's fall and the resultant curse by God on
creation.
Even subtle differences in one's assumptions regarding the Gospel can
result in radically different conclusions of the origins of man and
creation.
>We're happy to wrestle with these questions, but remember that most of the
>TEs on this discussion group are profession scientists and engineers ---
>we're only amateur theologians.
Unfortunately the subject matter and data have become so massive, and
our modern methods and reasoning have become so "compartmentalized",
that it is difficult to integrate our various disciplines. We have all
become well versed in our own "niche" and need to rely on an expert in
another to gain an understanding of their field. Theology tends to be
the most elusive to us.
This has the potential for both good and bad outcomes. Specialization
allows us to immerse ourselves in the subject matter and in many
disciplines we can generate immense levels of productive research and
useful information. We also run the risk of absolute error in our
assumptions and explanations by an incomplete integration with other
disciplines. When those disciplines involve philosophy and theology
their is even more of a reluctance to venture outside of our specialty.
We therefore become very good at debating the data and evidence and the
resultant explanations from the viewpoint of our discipline and poor at
debating the theological implications.
It would all certainly become even more interesting if someone can
discover a way around this paradox.
>We study enough theology to satisfy
>ourselves with the answers, but that may not be detailed enough for
>someone more deeply into theology. For more detailed answers than we can
>provide here, it's best to turn to books written by professional
>theologians who deal with this question. I'd be very interested if
>someone could read, summarize, and critique one or more of those books for
>this group.
Me too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
"As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Paul Durham pdd@gcc.cc.md.us
Oakland, Maryland