Re: [asa] Wells and traditional Christianity

From: Merv <>
Date: Sat Sep 02 2006 - 20:55:25 EDT

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> Suffering, pain and physical death do not relate specifically to the
> fall, unless you contend for a notion
...snip (I don't -- sooner or later you'll catch on that the age of
the earth & physical death before the fall is not something I disagree
with you on.)

You're helping me sharpen my thoughts -- thank you. I went to my Bible
for the purpose of finding the many verses I was sure would show how
suffering, pain, and physical death were tied to the fall, and of course
... I found nothing -- you are completely right. Virtually every
reference to suffering is to put it in it positive and refining role
when done for Christ. All pertinent references to death obviously
refer to spiritual death -- not physical. And pain comes up mostly
associated with child-bearing comparisons and cries of anguish (and
only the curse in Genesis associates that specific pain with the
fall.) So I am making progress! But I am still left pondering the
meaning of Paul's words in Romans and what a TE take on it would be:
Romans 8:20-21 ...creation subjected to futility not of its own
will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation
itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption ...

I notice now that the verse refers to God as the one who subjected
creation to its state of futility (am I correct that this refers to the
curses given in Genesis 3?)

> The problem with theodicy, which you say continues to puzzle you,
> ...snip...
Theodicy doesn't puzzle me -- our own human responsibility in the
fallen state of nature (or what it means for nature to be 'fallen') does.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 2 20:54:36 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 02 2006 - 20:54:36 EDT