george murphy wrote:
> To speak here of "one's favored theological theories" suggests that Paul
> and I are arguing for some idiosyncratic notion rather than the historic belief
> of the Christian church that Adam is representative of all humanity. This is the
> natural reading of St. Paul, and to challenge it raises serious questions about
> the claims which St. Paul makes in the passages in Rom. & I Cor. The naive idea
> that theological statements are somehow unreal and that in order to say something
> "really real" about Adam we have to identify him as a person with a certain
> height, weight, & social security number
> (000-00-0001?) is the source of a great deal of concordist activity which may be
> merely a waste of time but can cause definite harm.
George, I must say again your opinion that Adam was not the literal lfather of all
of mankind is news to me within the Christian Faith. I know of no denomination that
teaches such a thing -- from Baptist to Roman Catholic. Can you name those which do
Clever remarks, like "SSN 000-00-0001" sound good but add no weight to the argument.
It seems to me, George, that your theology is not Christian mainstream either.
Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 30 2001 - 13:33:36 EST