RE: Manichees & Pelagians (was Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall ...)

Hi George:
 
I don't think we are in disagreement here. Doesn't say anything about
God's provision for the sinning caveman, or what happens to babies who
die at or shortly after childbirth, or the mentally incompetent, or the
unhearing heathen, but since none of us fall into any of those
categories I guess we needn't worry about it And if we are going to
get a sharp rap on the knuckles for even bringing these subjects into a
discussion I guess we shouldn't even think about it.
 
I further agree that baptism is "more than a backup," although the thief
on the cross didn't need it. And I'll try to refrain from any levity in
the future lest I lure Mr. Grumpy out of his lair.
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:27 AM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: Manichees & Pelagians (was Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall
...)
 
As I've tried to emphasize, the primary question doesn't have to do with
the first humans but with the present. Scripture makes it pretty clear
that "all have sinned & fall short of ther glory of God," that without
regeneration all are "dead in trespasses and sins," "children of wrath,"
&c. Nothing is said about people becoming sinners at a certain age or
anything of the sort. & while while claiming empirical proof for this
independent of scripture is questionable, anyone who's been out & about
in the world should have much quarrel with the claim. All this is true
apart from anything that may be said about Adam & Eve. (As I noted in
my 2006 article, Jonathan Edwards, hardly a wild-eyed liberal, devotes
the whole long 1st chapter of his book on original sin to "the evidence
of original sin from what appears in fact of the sinfulness of mankind,"
where he cites numerous biblical texts.)
 
Without that fact of universal sinfulness we're open to all sorts of
speculations about what human beings can achieve on their own
spiritually. & once we start doing that, the fundamental gospel message
that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, for Christ's
sake alone, can be put in jeopardy. So we need to be very clear about
this first.
 
Why the human race is in this condition, & how the sin of one generation
may affects other, are important theological questions, & both scripture
& science have things to contribute to anaswers. But important as work
on this is for theological coherence, it doesn't rise to the level of
the first point.
 
& baptism is more than just a backup. But that's another subject.
 
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net> Fischer
To: 'George Murphy' <mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Cc: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:15 PM
Subject: RE: Manichees & Pelagians (was Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall
...)
 
Hi George:
 
Where I think we miss the point is by asking the question: How is sin
"transmitted" from Adam to the rest of the human race? As if Adam
caught a disease somehow and something vile spread to all of humanity.
It would be simpler, of course, if Adam had lived in Africa 100,000
years ago and possessed a unique genetic coding that today was common in
all of us, but such is not the case. We (at least some of us on this
list) have become aware of some facts that were unknown to the early
church and the erroneous assumptions they made can be seen today as
fallacies.
 
The only analogy I can offer that makes sense is comparing God's
punishment and reward system to our own system of jurisprudence where
the age and mental competence of the offender can be a mitigating factor
if he/she is underage when the offense is committed. It makes sense,
yes, but what makes sense to us as humans may not necessarily be in the
mind of the Creator. I readily acknowledge that. But God's system of
reward and punishment has permanent consequences for each of us so
understanding it is imperative. Fortunately, there is far less doubt in
the New Covenant. Claim Christ, follow Him, be saved (and just to be on
the safe side, get baptized).
 
What we are really looking at here on this list and part of this
discussion is what was the Old Covenant all about, and it is a matter
more of curiosity for us than necessity. If we foul it all up there are
no repercussions. We may wonder whether cave men were sinful or not,
but we aren't losing any sleep over it.
 
I presume there was no accountability for mankind prior to the time of
Adam. If accountability began with Adam were those outside of ear shot
held to account for their trespasses? Frankly, I don't know. But
likewise, I don't know what claim anyone may have to the kingdom who
passes from life's scene today and never got the word. I fear the worst
but hope for the best.
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 5:04 PM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: ASA
Subject: Manichees & Pelagians (was Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall ....)
 
Dick -
 
2 extremes have to be avoided. I already noted one, the idea that
original sin is so serious that we are no longer God's creatures. That
approximates the ancient heresy of Manichaeanism, that there is an evil
creator as well as a good one. The more popular heresy is that we're
sinners but just need a little help or a good example to get right with
God. That's usually called Pelagianism, though Pelagius was somewhat
more careful than that. We have more than a "propensity for
disobedience" - Eph.2:3-5 speaks of people prior to faith in Christ as
"children of wrath" and "dead in trespasses and sins. Historically,
Lutherans & Reformed suspected RCs of being at least semi-Pelagian, &
they've returned the favor by thinking that Luther & Calvin had
Manichaean tendencies. Fortunately ecumenical dialogue has gotten past
that.
 
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net> Fischer
To: 'George Murphy' <mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Cc: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 1:14 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall (was "Adam and the Fall")
 
Hi George;
 
I'm going to have to stop attending Baptist churches. Perhaps a
"propensity for disobedience" would sound better.
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 8:46 PM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall (was "Adam and the Fall")
 
Comment here just on one sentence of Dick's below. I don't mean to pick
on him but the phrase"sin nature" has been used by others here & should
be avoided. If we're going to use the idea of humans having a
distinctive "human nature" at all, the idea that this is a "sin nature"
would mean that before regeneration people are no longer in essence good
creations of God. That is why the 1st article of the Formula of Concord
rejected such language. (Augustine said that even in the devil is in
essence good.)
 
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net> Fischer
To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall (was "Adam and the Fall")
..............
Man has a sin nature and so far as I can tell has always had it. asa"
(no quotes) as the body of the message.
.............

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 19 12:13:03 2008