Re: [asa] Theological Perspectives Without a Literal Adam

From: Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Date: Wed Aug 22 2007 - 04:10:49 EDT

I am sorry to be coming so late to this thread.

First I want to suggest Robin Collins' essay entitled "Evolution and Original Sin" in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. I am surprised no one mentioned this essay before now, I am sure all of you are familiar with the book. Collins view differs from the Augustinian and Federal views, and he calls his view the "Historical/Ideal view.

Second I want to quote from this essay regarding the Augustinian view from the footnotes of this essay, George alluded to this earlier, but this quote is more explicit:

"Following Augustine, this condemnation (of all of mankind) has traditionally been interpreted as involving every person being guilty for Adam's sin. At least in part, however, Augustine based this doctrine on a faulty Old Latin translation of Rom 5:12, which read "death spread to all men in whom [i.e.Adam] all men sinned," instead of the correct translation which reads "death spread through all men because all men sinned' (see Paul blowers, "Original Sin," in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity,2nd edition, ed. Everett Ferguson [New York: Garland, 1997], p839). Further, as Blowers (p839) notes, "there is little evidence among the Greek father for a notion of inherited guilt or physically transmitted sinfulness." thus, Augustine went contrary to the tradtion at the time."

If this is accurate, then to me the Augustinian view is clearly incorrect.
  ----- Original Message ----- " ,
  From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
  To: dopderbeck@gmail.com
  Cc: gmurphy@raex.com ; philtill@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Theological Perspectives Without a Literal Adam

  May I suggest that there is a core of commitments, notably that salvation is by faith rather than works, that is fundamental. But there are denominational differences, such as the Lutheran, Calvinistic and Zwinglian views of the Lord's Supper. The views on baptism are different with Lutherans and Reformed, though they both practice infant baptism, which is not recognized among any of the denominations that have some Anabaptist influence. But even there there are the many who dip once and the Church of the Brethren/Brethren Church group who dip thrice. Sprinkled, poured or immersed, I'm sure that those who trust in Christ will be with Christ eternally, and all who have not faith will reach perdition, no matter how thoroughly wetted. Beyond the core, I don't know how to settle matters. And even in the orthodox core, there are some problems. I think Newton held to salvation by faith without being a Trinitarian. And I have heard of some non-Trinitarian Pentecostals.
  Dave (ASA)

  On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:31:54 -0400 "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
    These are all great questions as well -- but shouldn't we try to answer them as well as asking them? If the "Christian tradition" is nothing but a gaggle of different local traditions without any center of gravity, isn't that a problem? I guess I'd try to focus on the basic outline of the Nicene Creed as a rough guideline. Or maybe, using propositional doctrinal statements as the center of gravity isn't quite right -- maybe it's more of a MacIntyre-ian tradition; but still, the virtues and practices inherent to the tradition have to stem from God's revelation in Christ and in scripture, so that at least some sort of Christological claims must form a boundary between this tradition and some other one.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 22 04:10:50 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 22 2007 - 04:10:51 EDT