|
David wrote to John
> 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.
I for one am somewhat apathetic about John's position. I am (1) aware of
the historic sequence under which the doctrine of the fall took place.
Moreover, I also (2) know that Christ is infinitely greater than Adam and
that whatever the effect of the fall, it is dwarfed by the New man, the
Christ event -- his life, death, resurrection, ascension and continued
priestly mediation on our behalf and in our place, the one and the many, the one
for the many, the many in the one. And so I don't get nearly as worked up over
threats against the person and work of Adam as I do against that of the person
of Christ, the Lord of the universe.
In a case like this one, what I am is curious, but not offended. I will say
this: I expect the same thing from John as I do you or anyone who challenges
orthodoxy, myself included, and that is to present his case and do it in a way
that is persuasive. The burden of proof is on him, just as it was on you
when you denied the eternal Sonship of Christ. I did not find your arguments at
all compelling; they were certainly not persuasive enough to overthrow the
wisdom of the greatest post-apostolic teachers in the Church's history. I
also know that throughout our history, the vast majority of Christians have
agreed with the teaching of those greats, and that is why the doctrine of
Christ's eternal Sonship is considered to be and upheld as the one and only
orthodox position on the matter. Perhaps someday the church at large will shift
its teaching and deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. On that day I will find
myself on the side of heterodoxy, and the burden of proof will have shifted. On
that day the responsibility will be mine, and the burden too, to stand
against "orthodoxy" and thus the church, and prove why the it is wrong.
As far as John goes, if he wants to question the orthodoxy of the fall, I
say let him do so. Who is Adam but the old man? When Christ died, we died with
him -- and the old man died, too. The debt of the old is paid by the
New. Thank you Jesus! If John persuades me that the church has been wrong in
regards to the fall, then I will stand with him in the heterodoxy of our
position and attempt to convince the Church that it needs to repent. If not,
then I view his position as tertiary to the greater work of Christ and the Good
News of his salvation. In other words, it's not worth getting all worked up
about. He's got the Spirit to guide him; he'll come around soon enough.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 10:09
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism
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.
|
