Re: [asa] ORIGINS/BIBLE: Evolution, Adam, and Romans

There is not a shred of biblical support for his argument about Jesus dying two deaths. This is the problem with some ultra-evangelical interpretations. They also atomise scripture at times and just take a few verses. We should always consider any passage in its total context.

I am not sure what I would have done if he said that from my pulpit!! (I am sure Iain and others will have some wicked thoughts!)

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: Bill Hamilton
  Cc: Merv ; n j ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 4:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS/BIBLE: Evolution, Adam, and Romans

  Hi, Bill,

  When Andy McIntosh, the most prominent UK YEC spokesman came to speak at our church (amidst quite a bit of protest!), he was quite insistent that there were TWO sorts of death that were introduced by Adam's sin, namely a spiritual death (that occurred immediately) AND a physical death. He also made some bizarre argument about when the two different deaths occurred during the crucifixion (possibly the spiritual death occurring when Jesus said "My God my God why have you forsaken me" and the physical one when he "gave up the ghost"). Hence, in his view, both deaths were acted out as penalties on the Cross because both had arisen as part of the fall.

  I couldn't see any obvious justification for his arguments apart from the fact that he made them very forcefully. ( Argument Weak - Shout Louder principle). In fact he harangued us so loudly that the vicar told him to tone it down for the second service!

  Iain

  On 1/2/07, Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> wrote:

    --- Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:

> I had just read & pondered that verse (Rom 5:12) myself, this
> morning! Humility is an important ingredient also, in any of these
> discussions -- which (for me) means acknowledging the probable
> transience of my own currently settled position. --well summarized with
> the glib bumper sticker: 'Never put a period where God has put a
> comma.' As a Christian, though, I also cling to the faith that my
> transient apprehension has as its subject a body of universal and
> intransigent Truth.
>
> On Romans 5:12, one of the problems with the traditional creationist
> understanding of this verse is the insistence that it refer to physical
> death. This would make a literal untruth of Gen. 2:17 (... in /that
> day/ you shall surely die ...) In order to preserve the physical
> interpretation of death here, the young-earth creationist would have to
> budge away from the literal 24 hour meaning of 'day' which, it seems to
> me, would be an inconsistency.

    Surely creationists have heard this argument, but I am not aware of what, if
    any, response they have made to it. Does anyone know?

    Bill Hamilton
    William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
    248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
    "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    http://mail.yahoo.com

    To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
    "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

  --
  -----------
  After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.

  - Italian Proverb
  -----------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 2 12:26:12 2007