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

From: Adrian Teo (
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 15:04:21 EST

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")"

    Hello John,

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: John W Burgeson []
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:37 PM
    > To:
    > Cc:
    > Subject: Re: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")

    > In a second part of the message, Adrian continued: "Finally,
    > I also fail
    > to see how my view is "not particularly biblical", since this
    > is the view
    > held by the majority of Christians through the centuries."
    > Really? I think not. Only certain fundamentalists have held
    > this. Even my
    > friend, Dr. Gish, of ICR, has stated to me privately that he does not
    > hold it.
    > To refresh the issue, I said: "If I do not think Adam was a real live
    > single human
    > being, does that mean I am not a Christian? I'd assert
    > that such is a
    > very narrow view. And not particularly biblical."
    > I'll stand by that. It is not "biblical" to read someone out of
    > Christianity because they do not give assent to some particular
    > statement. It is as simple as that.

    I must have misuderstood you. I thought you were saying that my view of
    original sin and the historicity of Adam was not particularly biblical. So,
    you are saying that to accuse someone of not being Christian because of the
    denial of certain propositions would be unbiblical. I fully agree, and also
    hasten to remind you that I have not done so to anyone. I have questioned
    the orthodoxy of certain propositions, but that is quite different from
    accusing the person of not being a Christian. I hope this clears things up.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 15:05:12 EST