I
thought some more about G's question and my answer. I no longer have the
original posts to Reply to, so hopefully you can assemble them in your
head, if interested.
I should've said the WoG is, IS MORE THAN,
and illuminates, history. History is the trees, the WoG is the
forest.
Now as
to this no-fall thingy, I am trying it on. (If I can't do up at least some
of the buttons, I'm taking it off!)
Debbie
-----Original Message-----In a message dated 1/29/2005 6:00:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, Knpraise writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 7:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism
In a message dated 1/28/2005 12:18:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
Here it is in a nutshell. It seems to me that the following is the teaching of the "fall" as it pertains to the actual event, itself.
Adam created without a sin nature and living what was intended - heaven on earth
Adam after the sin event now with a sin nature - now destined for a destiny elsewhere
The "line" in the above is the "sin event" or the actual "fall.
How do I accept the full equation without believing in a Plan B theology. I have seen some explanation but nothing that does not strike me as off the mark, somewhat.
I see Adam in scripture as having the same "fallen" nature as David Miller. While I am writing this, it has just struck me -- if we do not argue that the "fall" had an effect on the human nature of Adam, I have no problem with it. There is no question that Paul uses the sin event of Adam as shadow of sorts of the Christ event. I just do not believe that Adam was ever created to live out his days on this earth........... what was begun in Adam with his creation is a similar consideration in the lives of us all. He had a nature that was open to disobedience. Perhaps I do not see the "sin event" as a tragedy. Rather, it was and is (us all ) that which springs from unregenerate man. It was going to happen -- BECAUSE GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH US YET. Adam needed the same Author and Finisher as we. It is not simply that we share in Adam because of sin -- rather, we share in Adam because we are involved in the same process as he was. Soooooooooooo, maybe I am focussing on the wrong wording to express my concern.
Help?
JD
