Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 18:01:39 EDT

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)"

    Yes the Fall is the most well supported of all doctrines. But what do you
    mean by historical with the Fall? At some point an ape became human and
    along with that the propensity to sin. Is that a historical fall? See
    Peacocke Creation and the World of Science espec p 193.

    Ted is right to see that the doctrine of the Fall is the pivot to YEC as
    they present the case if a snake did not deceive Eve then all doctrine up to
    the atonement collapse like skittles. It has superficial great appeal as doe
    the argument that there was no death before the Fall as the wages of sin is
    death.

    Michael
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
    To: <RFaussette@aol.com>; <gmurphy@raex.com>; <bnelson301@yahoo.com>
    Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>; <hvantill@chartermi.net>; <jbembe@hotmail.com>
    Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:26 PM
    Subject: Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)

    > Yes, I agree that original sin is *true*, indeed Neibuhr or Chesterton
    > (can't remember which, can someone help?) once said that original sin was
    > the most empirically verified theological belief we have.
    >
    > Romans 5:12 clearly teaches that we *are* all sinners, that we are all
    like
    > Adam in this respect. The question is, what is the *theory* of original
    sin
    > as vs the doctrine of original sin?
    >
    > The "fall" is real, in that we all harbor a great capacity for wickedness,
    > rebellion against the Almighty in various forms. Whether the "fall" is
    also
    > historical, is another question.
    >
    > ted
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 18:05:04 EDT