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

From: Adrian Teo (
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 13:36:16 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Date of genesis 1 (was Genesis One that Fits, #3)"

    Hello Howard,

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Howard J. Van Till []
    Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:02 PM
    To: Adrian Teo; 'John W Burgeson'
    Subject: Re: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")

    >> From: John W Burgeson []
    >> Then maybe the "doctrine of original sin" is what needs to be
    >> challenged?

    Adrian replied:

    > Perhaps so. However, one may be tempted to take this line of reasoning and
    > argue that maybe ANY fundamental doctrines of the faith should also be
    > challenged including the Trinity, Christ as man-God, sola Scriptura, etc.
    > Where do we draw the line?

    Good question, Adrian. Perhaps the line should not be drawn until all
    humanly-crafted theological theories (often called "doctrines") have
    received the challenging reexamination they deserve.

    [AT] Any form of reexamination presupposes some prior "humanly-crafted"
    truths. How far back can one go?
    Once we recognize these "fundamental doctrines of the faith" as "human best
    efforts" offered by historical communities of faith at varying times and in
    varying cultural, political and sociological circumstances, they can then be
    appreciated, valued, examined, adopted, modified, rejected, or replaced, but
    never idolized as the final word or used as a club to beat other good
    persons away from the community of those who declare themselves followers of
    Christ (Christians).

    [AT] I fully agree that one should never apply doctrines in ways that
    disrespects the inherent dignity of another person.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 27 2002 - 13:36:56 EST