George wrote:
Peter wrote:
> > That "the many died by the trespass of the one man" (v.15) refers back to
> > "just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and
> > in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (v.12): "in this
> way"
> > (houtos) = "in the same way", i.e. by also sinning _themselves_, and not
> > because of someone else's (e.g. a first man's) trespass. Paul explicitely
> > emphasizes this. Similarly, "just as the result of one trespass was
> > condemnation for all men" (v.18, NIV, di'henos paraptomatos) must be
> > interpreted on the basis of what Paul had specified initially in v.12:
> > although different people may sin in many different ways, the _type_ of
> > their trespass is always the same, namely turning away from trusting
> God, it
> > is _one trespass_ by all, and as a result of this there is condemnation for
> > all. I think this is the "condition of 'original sin'" you mention, but it
> > is not "original" in the sense of being caused by some first man. The
> > unbiblical term "original" is really misleading. Nothing changes
> > theologically if the type-man illustrating this view is not the temporally
> > first man................
>
> This is simply an attempt to evades the thrust of Paul's
> argument. The
>statement that "one man's trespass led to condemnation for all [people]"
>(di' henos
>paraptomatos eis pantas anthropous eis katakrima) clearly means that that
>"one man's
>trespass" had some kind of causal role in bringing about a condition
>deserving of
>condemnation for all.
This sounds like an argument coming from one who believes there was a flesh
and blood human being - Adam. Someone "trespassed." We agree. When do
you think he lived?
>It cannot be reduced to the statement that all people "just
>happened" to sin in the same way that one arbitrarily chosen
>representative or exemplar
>sinned.
Neither Peter nor I have argued that Adam was chosen in some arbitrary
manner. But you seem to be arguing that Adam must somehow be father to us
all in order for his sin to be applicable to us all.
During World War II, the Nazi dictator, Adolf Hitler, was responsible for
the senseless and tragic eradication of 6 million innocent Jewish
civilians. Were the Jews sinners? Of course, "there is none righteous, no
not one" (Rom 3:10). Was the Nazi dictator, by his insane decree, directly
responsible for the death of those Jews? Yes, he was. Is it accurate to
say that death passed upon all of them due to the sin of one man? Yes, it
is. Were those 6 million who died descendants of the Nazi
dictator? Obviously not.
>It's not only that there's no explicit mention of pre-Adamites - there's no
>mention simpliciter. I agree - as I've said before - that you can force
>them into the
>text, just as you can jam in the idea that the sun & moon broke through
>the clouds on
>the 4th day. But it's quite another matter to try to get such things out
>of the text.
How I understand Genesis and indeed all the Old Testament is that it is the
history of the Israelites. It's far more than that, of course, since it is
also the history of the covenantal relationship God had with His chosen
people, and it is the history of the line of promise leading to Christ, our
Saviour. And, of course, it's prophecy, and law, and theology, etc.
But it isn't Chinese history, or African history, or anybody else's
history. The writer of Genesis had no knowledge of the beginnings of any
other race of people and he didn't speculate. Genesis was written for the
Israelites, it was given to them, and it was intended for them. If you
want to know where Murphyites came from, don't look in Genesis, it isn't there.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Thu Mar 4 22:57:10 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 04 2004 - 22:57:10 EST