We can take it off line, if you prefer. I have no problem
ignoring the Attackers who roam TT,
however.
I do read your posts as well as Perry's -- but, lately, you
two seem to be in a rut over the speculative issue of the human reality
if there had been no sin.
From my point of view, this could not have happened because it
did not happen. I believe that creation included the creation of more
humans than just A & E. Their story is singled out because of
their relation to the story of Christ and the reconciliation of
mankind. Adam and Eve were created for the same perfection we all
receive in Christ.
The Cross was a part of the creation equation from before the
foundations of the world. That single event is the context of the
Garden Story for me. Any and all speculation must be considered in
the light of the Cross IMO. Perhaps that is why Perry sees
no point in the conjecture in question.
Sin is a transgression of the Law. But it much more than
this. It is also a systemic aspect of our very nature. Selfishness is
an example of this circumstance. It is against the will of God but
not the Law of Moses, for example. Adam and Eve is the story of the
first TRANSGRESSION. Their
selfishness and pride manifested themselves in the temptation
to sin. Their disobedience manifested itself in their eating of
the fruit. The story told in Old Testament scripture is, in part, the
story of man's relation to the stated Law of God.
Christ on the cross dealt with the consequence of the violation
of Law. But His death also ushered into existence the reconciliation
of all things (Col 1:20-24) and
the rule of the Spirit. Adam and Eve were given but one single
commandment - the fore-runner
to the grander Law of Moses. They were given one thing to do and they
couldn't even do that !!!!
Man has a tendency to
look to Law as the order of life. Such is clearly demonstrated by
some here on TT. The fact of
the matter, IMO, is something very different. Kingdom
rule is that which deals with the systemic nature of sin. The Sermon
on the Mount was an important aspect of the ministry of Christ,
because, in those words, the Master uncovers the "real" problem with
the Law. "Law" is proven to be
of no help (Romans 2 and 3) in dealing with that which is clearly
systemic (or "organic" as described by some on this forum).
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hansen <
dave@langlitz.com>
To:
[email protected]
Sent: Tue, 13
Sep 2005 23:17:06
-0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Fall
DAVEH: Haven't you been reading
Perry's posts about it?.........
Perry wrote:
What is the purpose of this conjecture? Adam and Eve fell, so it is *a
pure waste of time* to conjecture otherwise.
........It seems that whenever (with some occasional exceptions....
DavidM) I've tried to discuss the Fall
of A&E with Protestants, they don't want to consider what happened
prior to the Fall that precipitated the Fall. Does that make sense,
JD? From my
LDS perspective, there is a lot of extra-Biblical
revelation that explains some of the oddities about the Fall of
A&E. Protestants don't have that advantage, so their only response
seems to be as Perry's above....
a pure waste of time to
consider what God w ants to happen.
For instance...
.If God does not want sin to enter the world, why did he allow Satan to
influence Eve? Does Protestantism offer an ans
wer to that question?
BTW........I suspect having a discussion such as this may cause
some
TTers to have a
conniption, which will undoubtedly
bring on a slew of ugly posts. If you wish, we can take this off
TT to keep it simple without all the
distractions.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"limited view of the fall." How so. Poisoning? Some
think they are the protectors of the truth. Most of us know that such
effort is fully unnecessary. We are all big boys and girls, in spite of our we often act. You and
Blaine included.....sorry. :-) Anyway, give it a try. "How
so?"
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hansen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
[email protected]
Sent: Tue, 13
Sep 2005 21:39:13
-0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Fall
DAVEH: This topic fascinates me, as
I'm very curious as to why the Protestants have such a limited (from my
perspective) view of the Fall. But for me to offer my thoughts on this
event would be seen as poisoning the well by some
TTers.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyone care to have a real discussion ??? I am still
working on the "fall" of man. Man is created out of the dust of the
earth and returns to same when he dies. He was created as a mortal -
thus the tree of life is found in the garden. I assume they ate of
that tree up until the time they sinned or there was no point to the
tree being there except for the story teller to reveal that A&E
were driven from the garden because of the tree and what it offered.
The accounting of their temptation-to-sin reflects the very
same process as exists in our lives.
There is no indication within the text that their nature or
essence changed.
So why should I conclude that the fall included more than
the record of the first sin event.
Virtually everyone I know and respect thinks there is more
to the fall than the sin event. Why?
I get a little nervous when I realize that I am the only one
who thinks a particular thing. Help.
JD
