David Miller wrote: >> What about your perspective that there >> was no fall of man in the garden? >> Isn't that part of modern pop theology?
John wrote: > Why ask that question? Because I was surprised to hear you say that there are no pop theologies in this forum. I would consider a disbelief in the fall of man to be pop theology. Do you consider your theology about there not being a fall to be orthodox? What about you, Jonathan, and Lance too, and Bill Taylor? Do you guys consider this theology of no fall of man to be orthodox? It seems to me that this fall of man doctrine is a much more important consideration than the eternal sonship doctrine. John wrote: > You have heard this before > -- where and when? I have heard it many times for the last 20 years, especially from theistic evolutionists. It has gained popularity as evolutionary theory as gained acceptance as the best explanation for origins. John wrote: > Speaking for myself, it came from the realization > that I could not demonstrate a "fall" in terms of > human nature in the life of Adam. So from your perspective, does your lack of ability to demonstrate it mean that it is false? Do you accept the Church of Christ hermenutic concerning "silence of Scripture"? John wrote: > I do not believe in "plan B" creation theology. So do you believe that God planned for Adam to sin, and created him and the earth so that he would definitely sin? Adam had no choice in the matter of sinning, no power to resist sinning? Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
