Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

David,

I understand that the "slippery slope" argument can hold some weight, but
overall, I don't think that fear should be our determinant in hermeneutics.
Luther thought that anyone accepting a helio-centric universe, and denying
the firmament, was being wicked and presumptuous. Yet we have all accepted
no firmament, and have not lost faith in Christ.
I would say that many of the non-historical views of Adam have downplayed
human sinfulness to an unacceptable degree. But that is not what I do. I
don't think it is hard to "hold together the broad narrative of scripture"
if I deny an adamic figure historicity. I do agree, though, that it will
have some effects on the cosmic aspects of atonement, because I think we
have to reject a cosmic fall (and the results that was supposed to have
brought about: predation, sickness, death).

Bethany

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:25 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>wrote:

> Beth said: No one agrees with one, everyone tries to agree with the
> other. Why?
>
> I respond: because the physical nature of the "firmament" has essentially
> no theological significance, whereas the reality "Adam's" sin is of crucial
> significance.
>
> Would you agree with this: the theological perspectives that have been
> most willing to see "Adam" as non-historical over the past 75 years or so
> have also tended to be "soft" on the total depravity of human nature and the
> need for personal regeneration through Christ?
> Without some historical referent for the claim that humanity, in its
> first representative(s), decisively turned away from and broke fellowship
> with God, it's very hard (or so it seems to me) to hold together the broad
> narrative of scripture and the cosmic aspects of the atonement.
>
>
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 13 13:01:44 2008