|
Hi John. I don't have a lot of time, so my
response is in red. This is becoming much too personal, so I think we
should just drop this exchange until you are able to reason together with me
without it being personal.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:23
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism
In a message dated 1/27/2005 8:45:22 AM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
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.
So
what? I strive for that which is sensible in light of my understanding
of scripture. But maybe I do not know the doctrine of the
fall? Teach it to me David. It's Miller time for the
truth !!! What was man, prior to this
"fall," David? How was he different from us
today? What in man's human nature is counted as
"fallen?
I was only asking a question because I am
interested in what you believe. I have no desire to teach you about the
fall right now. I'm interested in what you and others think about the
fall of man being orthodox doctrine or pop theology. From my
perspective, it seems inconsistent for some of you to get so emotional over
the eternal sonship doctrine, something that is popular (pop?) theology, but
not necessarily an orthodox necessity from my perspective, while at the
same time appear apathetic about the idea that maybe there was no fall of man
in the garden. For the sake of relationship, I'm seeking to
reconcile my understanding about this.
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.
Tha's it
David -- introduce so many variables into this discussion
that staying on track eventually becomes impossible.
Sorry, John. It does not seem
that complicated to me. I will back off to prevent information
overload.
One being more
important than the other. For you, maybe. For me, each is
equally important,
Out of respect for my friends in the
Righteous Triad (I like that more than "liberal, don't you?), I
believe that I am the only one who has fallen from the "fall." It
fits in with the equation Lance, Jonathan, Billy T and poor
old John Smithson.
I would like to hear what they
think about your falling from the fall. Gary answered, but as usual, I
cannot decipher his encrypted post well enough to know what he thinks.
Perhaps he disagrees but is not passionate about it.
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.
I like
your tactics. We are not having a discussion. We are having
a tactical echange for the sake of others. An so you try to force
me onto the defensive with the "pop theology" charge; you try to tie my
view to others, hoping to pounce onto some revealed confusion-in-the-ranks as
the lefties move to counter The Prophet's guilt by association maneuver;
you advance this "guilt by association" theme by comparing my views to
"theistic evolutionshists"; and in the next paragraph, you will
associate me with the Church of Christ -- another "guilt by
association" aspect of your "argument.
You seem to forget that I was trying to answer your
question. I did not care to bring this up at all. You
asked for where and when I have heard this. I answered.
No need to imply evil motives or shady debate tactics on my part.
This is an ad hominem fallacy. As for my
mentioning of "Church of Christ," I know your background there and figure that
you are familiar with this favorite hermeneutic of theirs. Guilt by
association has nothing to do with my question. I was simply attempting
to communicate in terse form. You answered no. So how could it be
guilt by association?
So, do me a favor and give me some of
these quotes theistic evolutionist community that preaches what I
presented. After doing this, please answer this
quesiton: " so what?"
I don't care to do your homework
for you. If you are not interested, fine. Let's just drop
it.
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? Certainly. Your use of
the prejudicial question is outstanding, I might add.
Do you accept the Church of Christ hermenutic concerning
"silence of
Scripture"? No. All that the silence of the scriptures
proves is that the scriptures are silent (on a particualr point.)
There is a contradiction here.
You respond "certainly" to my question of whether your lack of ability
to demonstrate the fall means that the doctrine is false, yet you say that
you do not accept the hermeneutic of "silence of Scriptures."
John wrote:
>I
do not believe in "plan B" creation theology.
So do you believe that
God planned for Adam to sin, I believe that the Son of God was pointed
from before the foundations of the world to enter our space, learn our
ways, become like in order to best serve us, die and be raised
-- all because we share in the actions of Adam; all because we
did (do) exactly what he and the Rib did and created him and the
earth so that he would definitely sin? I beleive that from God's
point of view, He knew of Adam's sinning before Adam was created
-- apparently you and I disagree on this, as
well Adam had no choice in the matter of
sinning, no power to resist sinning? Do you reference events
sins (drunkenness, cusing, adultery), sins of the character
(selfishness, laziness, envy, covetousness, seeking our own, pride,
conceit, bigotry and the like), sins of omission or rebellion against
God?
David Miller.
John, throughout this post, I ask
simple questions and you come back with accusations. You should think
about that. Why can we not reason together? Why make a fight out
of it? Why the personal attacks? These are rhetorical questions I
offer for your own private meditation. Please do not respond to this
post with more accusations. Let's just leave it be for now. I have
no time nor inclination for fighting with you. I may try to dialogue
with you again in the future, but for now, let's just be at peace.
Something is amiss when simple questions bring out such evil surmisings as I
have seen in this post.
|
