Re: [asa] Our discourse here

It is not a question of metaphors. "All of scripture everywhere speaks only
of Christ" as Luther put it. (Of course there are naive ways of
understanding that which need to be avoided.) Christ is foundation &
linchpin & simply the _subject_ of scripture. Without Christ there is of
course no New Testament & if we take seriously texts like Lk.24:27 ("in all
the scriptures") the Old Testament is evacuated of its primary content as
well. Eph.1:10 says that God's plan for the whole creation ("all things")
is focused in Christ - & that with no reference at all to Adam or original
sin.

Yes, the story of Adam & Eve & the concept of original sin are important,
but quite minor in comparison with Christ - & even in comparison with other
people & concepts in scriptures. Christ is presented clearly in the Gospels
as savior of sinners with no reference to either Adam or original sin. &
the numbers of times Adam is mentioned after Gen.3 in the whole Bible can be
counted on your fingers. Abraham, as the father of believers, gets much
more attention that he does, & the Exodus is a far more important story for
both Israel and the church that is that of the Garden of Eden.

Shalom,
George

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Patterson" <james000777@bellsouth.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:06 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Our discourse here

>> The linchpin of scripture is Jesus Christ, not Adam and Eve or original
>> sin.
>
> Well, OK, but metaphors can only be taken so far George. I would call
> Jesus the foundation...but anyway, my point is that they are really
> important.
>
> JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com [mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:52 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; James Patterson
> Subject: RE: [asa] Our discourse here
>
> The linchpin of scripture is Jesus Christ, not Adam and Eve or original
> sin.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> ---- James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> I don't know what you mean by intimately involved but as I stated,
>>
>> I don't think I and a lot of people on this list neccessarily
>>
>> believe that and I resent the implication that means I am not
>>
>> choosing God. This assumes a historical Adam and a literal Genesis
>>
>> and as you know there are many on this list that reject both.
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact, I think the opposite is more true, that the PSI Gulo
>>
>> pseudogene evidence shows that man was likely not the result of
>>
>> any intimate involvement (e.g. special creation) unless you
>>
>> consider the spiritual aspect of man and that would likely be
>>
>> imperceptible to science anyway, rendering this to be by all
>>
>> appearances identical to the deistic position anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> So again, we are back to your strawman argument that God NOT being
>>
>> intimately involved in Adam and Eve means not choosing God and
>>
>> that God HAD to leave His fingerprints on Adam and Eve to get the
>>
>> credit for creating them. But neither is true and neither are
>>
>> scientific statements. And neither are supported by data either.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well then, John, perhaps you do have a problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Bible is an integrated whole, and fits together throughout its
>> breadth. You want to remove the lynchpin from that completeness by
>> removing Adam and Eve, and original sin. I am not sure that Adam and Eve
>> were the first two of all mankind. Even if they were the first two of the
>> Hebrews, they were the first two. Genesis spends quite a bit of time
>> telling us about them. If you want to think that Genesis and all the rest
>> of the creation accounts in the Bible are made-up, then that is your
>> choice. I believe it’s the wrong one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here’s a little thought experiment:
>>
>>
>>
>> Genesis 1 and 2 are obviously just symbolic. There’s no scientific
>> evidence for Adam and Eve, right? So that means all of Genesis is
>> tainted…why not just blow the whole of Genesis off? And while we’re at
>> it, Exodus is shaky too. There’s no evidence all that really happened.
>> Heck, I don’t like any of the Pentateuch, let’s get rid of it as well.
>> And while we are at it, Revelations doesn’t seem right either. I’m not
>> sure it’s supposed to be there.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, since God didn’t have any supernatural involvement with the creation
>> of man or his spiritual nature, then why accept any of the supernatural
>> accounts in the Bible? Why not just become a higher critic, and cut out
>> the portions of the Bible altogether that reference prophecy, miracles,
>> signs and wonders, and don’t align with science? They obviously are
>> false, since the supernatural isn’t real.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not just be a deist then? If all you need is the moral law of God,
>> why believe in Christ at all? Why shouldn’t we just believe then, that
>> Jesus was “just a good man”?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hopefully from this little thought experiment my message is clear. If you
>> think that you can “choose God” and deny the Genesis account of creation
>> (as well as all the other references in the Bible), then I disagree with
>> you, I believe you are wrong, I believe that your Christianity lacks
>> foundational strength, and I think therefore that your faith is on shaky
>> ground. You must deal with my statements as best you can, because that’s
>> where I live, and that’s what I believe.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a balance. YEC denies science. You deny the Genesis account. I
>> accept both. That is not always easy for me to like or deal with. You may
>> continue to resent that if you wish, but where does that anger come from,
>> really? Because you really need to deal with the source of that anger –
>> not with me. I am comfortable discussing these topics. I will defend my
>> position as best I am able.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now…did I touch on a nerve for more than just John? Quite likely.
>> However, I think that you should be able to see 1 Peter 3:15 above, and I
>> think it is wholly consistent with Ephesians 4:29. However, perhaps this
>> modification of my original statement will appease you:
>>
>>
>>
>> If you choose not to believe that God was intimately involved with the
>> creation of man through Adam and Eve, then that’s your choice. As for me
>> and my family, we choose God’s intimate involvement with his Creation.
>>
>>
>>
>> JP
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe 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 Thu Feb 26 19:29:03 2009