RE: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")

From: Adrian Teo (
Date: Mon Feb 25 2002 - 12:24:48 EST

  • Next message: Adrian Teo: "RE: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")"

    Hello Bob,

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Robert Schneider []
    > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 4:00 PM
    > To:
    > Subject: Re: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")
    > >
    > I agree, Burgy. It might be worthwhile mentioning that the
    > doctrine of
    > original sin is a western Christian conception and not part
    > of the body of
    > doctrine of eastern Christianity. The concept of the Fall is not
    > inextricably connected with the doctrine of original sin in
    > the eyes of
    > eastern theologians. And there have always been western
    > Christians (myself
    > included) who have thought that O.S. is neither an adequate
    > theological
    > explanation for human sinfulness nor a prerequisite for God's act of
    > salvation in Christ.

    The Orthodox believe that humans automatically inherit the corruption and
    mortality of the first man, but not the guilt. They place much emphasis on
    human freedom and that grace continues to act on fallen humanity, albeit
    externally rather than from within. Whatever the case may be (Eastern or
    Western views), polygenism is rejected by both sides (I believe), and both
    agree that the historical Adam transmitted something bad to all of us as a
    result of his (and Eve's) *freely* chosen act. One cannot deny the histority
    of Adam.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 25 2002 - 12:29:04 EST