Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Augustine was of course wrong about an histoprical Adam & the mode of
transmission of sin. Whether he was wrong about everyone being born in a
sinful condition, & the seriousness of that consition, is quite another
matter. (The answer, for those who want to look in the back of the book, is
that he was right on both.)

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>
To: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>; "Murray Hogg"
<muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book
comments

> Don writes:
>
>> Clearly the doctrine of original sin as expounded by Augustine, and
>> consequently a doctrine of the atonement based on that exposition, is
>> inadequate in the light of the fossil record and genetic investigations.
>
> Dear Don,
> I completely agree with you regarding Augustine's view of original sin.
> In his day, Adam was a scientific fact, and consequently Adam (an ancient
> science of human origins) was conflated with the doctrine of sin (the
> inerrant
> Message of Faith). Ergo, the doctrine of original sin needs to be freed
> from the ancient science and reformulated.
>
> Now, whether or not the doctrine of the atonement needs to be reformulated
> is another issue.
>
> Best,
> Denis
>
>
> 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 Fri Oct 2 22:34:23 2009