Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

----- Original Message -----
From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Paul Seely" <PHSeely@msn.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

> Of course I am not an expert in your "theology of the cross", but in the
> same issue of Perspectives, McIntryre interprets that once Adam "ate of
> the tree of good and evil: "his eyes were opended and he knew that he was
> naked." Knowing good and evil, Adam is no longer simply a part of nature.
> He now, like God, transcends the natural world and can evaluate the events
> that occur there. ...Before eating of the tree, Adam was an innocent
> creature even though he followed the desires of his animal nature. Being
> innocent, he was guiltless but not righteous...Now his formerly innocent
> animal desires led him to sin. For "apart from the law sin lies dead"."
> And becomes a sinner in need of the cross.
>
> This sounds very similar to your Christ first theology. That is once man
> was given the Law of God, it was inevitable that he would sin.
>
> And McIntyre interprets all this while maintaining a view that Adam was an
> historical figure.

1) Jack's article presupposes a "real Adam."
2) (from his abstract) - "the injustice of Original Sin has been
eliminated." The "justification" of God according to human standards ought
to make us wary. "A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A
theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is" is the way
Luther put it.

Shalom,
George
Received on Sat Jun 10 22:19:58 2006