From: Terry M. Gray (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Dec 21 2002 - 13:23:07 EST
You (and Adrian) wrote:
>> 2) & in fact it simply is not true that "the
>>reality of original sin in all of
>> us necessitates a single source." In Romans 1:18-3:20 Paul
>>speaks in detail of the
>> sinfulness of all human beings without referring to Adam
>>or, indeed, to any historical
>> source for that phenomenon.
>> AT: In context, Paul was trying the persuade the
>>Judaizers that Jews were as guilty as Gentiles were. The comparison
>>here was between Jews and Gentiles, whereas in
>>chapter 5, the comparison was between Adam and Christ.
> The structures of the 2 passages are hardly parallel but that
>isn't the main
>point. 1:18-3:20 shows the universal sinfulness of humanity, & this
>is done with no
>reference to origins.
I continue to be puzzled by this. It seems to me that the argument in
Romans 1-3 (that has no reference to origins) doesn't contribute to
the debate about whether a "single-source" origin is valid or not.
Your argument seems something like a non sequitur here. Can't Paul
make the argument about the universality of sin based on its
observation and not worry about where it came from? The fact that he
did that simply doesn't address the other question. Surely you would
admit that every treatment of a given doctrine in scripture (which is
non-systematic) doesn't have to give the full systematic presentation.
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 21 2002 - 13:25:52 EST