Re: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:54:45 -0700 "Terry M. Gray"
<grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> writes:
> David Siemens wrote:
>
>
> >These are related to questions which I have raised. Dick seems to
> think
> >that Adam's guilt was transferred to all human beings, whether his
> >descendants or not. I contend that, if the Fall is so transmitted,
> then
> >redemption must be equally transmitted and we have radical
> universalism.
>
>
> While I'm not generally a defender of Dick Fisher's view, I don't
> understand why what you say here is true. Redemption is not
> transferred to all human beings "by ordinary generation". In
> principle, why must the guilt of the Fall? The guilt of Adam's first
>
> sin is imputed to all who are represented by Adam. We traditionally
>
> have said that those who are represented by Adam are all those who
> descended from Adam--but in principle it could be a broader group
> than that.
>
> We don't say that those who are represented by Christ are those who
>
> descended from Christ--Christ had no physical descendents, DaVinci
> Code notwithstanding. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to all
>
> who are represented by Christ--"to everyone who believes" (including
>
> Old Testament believers).
>
> As Christ's representation stretched back before His saving work,
> why
> couldn't Adam's representation stretch back before his fall?
>
> See Derek Kidner's discussion of this possibility in his Genesis
> commentary. I quoted it long ago on this list:
>
> http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199604/0039.html
> http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199604/0040.html
>
> Kidner doesn't propose a "back in time" idea but does allow for
> representation without physical relatedness. Here's the key
> sentence:
>
> *...the unity of mankind 'in Adam' and our common status as sinners
>
> through his offence
> are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity but simply of
>
> solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical
>
> descent .... Rather, Adam's sin is shown to have implicated all men
>
> because he was the federal head of humanity, somewhat as in Christ's
>
> death 'one died for all, therefore all died' (2 Cor. 5:14).
> Paternity
> plays no part in making Adam 'the figure of him that was to come'
> (Rom. 5:14).*
>
> TG
> --
Terry,
You're in a Reformed pattern, not a Fisher pattern. Dick wants Adam to be
historical, but about 7000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years.
This requires, among other things, modifying Genesis 3:20 from "mother of
all living" to "mother of the few, excluding most of the Mesopotamians
and all the inhabitants of other parts of earth at the time, and all
their descendants, who must be far more numerous than the Cainites and
Sethites." The common understanding is that Adam's sin is inherited by
his descendants. Dick has sin beginning with Adam (strictly unknown
before) but passed to at least all the people living at the time of
Adam's "creation." If Adam's sin is so transmitted (the alternative is
that only direct descendants of Adam are eligible for redemption--or need
it), then Christ's redemption should be similarly transmitted to all
alive at the time of the crucifixion. If Adam's introduction of sin was
retroactive, then redemption should similarly be retroactive--on Dick's
interpretation, not on your Reformed approach. Of course, you can
separate sin and salvation, making damnation universal and redemption
restricted to those who have faith in Christ. To this George properly
objects. Yes, you can try to paper over the problems that Dick's approach
to making Genesis 1-11 historical (with a subjectively revised text), but
every patch causes additional problems. For example, why did God bring
the animals by for naming and announce that there was no adequate help
for Adam among them when there were lots of women just outside of the
boundaries of Eden? If Adam's knowledge was transmitted directly to all
humans then alive, could not his positive knowledge have been granted to
a woman who would be his equal? The unacceptable consequences of Dick's
view mount up inexorably.

I contend that Dick's view is plausible only given tunnel vision, like
the "solution" I offered my students to the problem of getting chilled
after a shower. Since one is not cold while the warm water is on and the
chill is at least greatly reduced when one is dry, stand in the warm flow
until you are towelled dry. You won't be chilled so long as the hot water
holds out, and you'll be OK once you're dry..
Dave
Received on Sat Nov 13 23:27:33 2004