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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:36:06 -0700 "Terry M. Gray"
<grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> writes:
>
> Legally and covenantally is not "magical" any more than it is for
> what I get from Christ. I get a legal status of non-guilty
> (justified). That makes me right with God. Granted, intrinsic
> ighteousness follows by the work of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Why must we insist on "material transference"?
>
> I'm not necessarily saying that this is what Dick Fischer is saying,
>
> but if God in his dealings with human-kind made some individual that
>
> we reckon to be Adam to be the representative of everyone,
> everywhere, then that's His choice (and such dealings through the
> covenant head seems normal for God's dealing with His people
> throughout history). I think it's fully possible that actual
> transgression can flow out of imputed guilt just as much as actual
> righteousness can flow out of imputed righteousness. Granted,
> there's
> Holy Spirit renewal in the latter case--perhaps imputed guilt with
> the absence of the Holy Spirit is enough to produce actual
> transgression (speculation, I know).
>
> TG
>
Terry,
We're back to what I earlier claimed. My understanding of Scripture
requires that Christ's righteousness is transferred to me by faith.
Romans 10 seems clear that hearing the Gospel is basic to faith. This
means to me that Christ's righteousness has a restricted transfer. His
death and resurrection are sufficient for every member of the human race,
but are not applied to everyone. According to Dick, Adam's fall has an
unlimited transfer. But this means that there is no "commensurability"
between Adam's sin and Christ's forgiveness. Alternatively, if Adam's
fall transferred to all, I care not by what means, then Christ's
righteousness must equally transfer to all, and universal fall is
paralleled by universal salvation. How can you universally transfer the
sin and condemnation which originated in Adam without similarly
transferring salvation and forgiveness? Note that the fall is of one
finite human being or pair while the cross involves the infinite deity
incarnate. Must not the latter be broader, mightier, more effective and
powerful, less restricted? Dick turns this upside down and inside out. I
claim that, on any rational analysis, his view can be defended only by
ignoring both its requirements and its consequences.
Dave
Received on Mon Nov 15 16:54:30 2004