George Murphy wrote:
> The idea "that Christ had to pay the penalty for sin" is one of at least a dozen
> "theories of the atonement" which have been held within Christianity. This particular
> one has been very influential in the western church but no one theory has dogmatic
> status. Most of them have been held by Christians who assumed Genesis 3 to be an
> historical account of what happened with the first humans, but could also be held with
> small variations by those who don't.
> There are a number of ways of understanding the work of Christ & while some of
> them may be commonly expressed in terms of a literal interpretation of Genesis 3, they
> are not really dependent upon that. So one can't start from what Christ did & argue
> back unambiguously to a knowledge of how sin originated.
> Shalom,
> George
This came up (in writing) in a recent Christian Faculty lunch at William and Mary just last week. A
sermon by Dr. James Kennedy (Jan. 1983) was handed out in which, among other claims, he proclaims
that "...it is well known that evolution makes the entire mission of Jesus Christ superfluous;" and
again "If evolution is true then that whole idea of redemption is false and Christ came for naught;
and Christianity is therefore, untrue." These are serious charges.
Who are the theologians who are working out the theological ramifications of theistic evolution? (I
guess I should visit George's web site ... ok, I will :-) )
George A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 10 2000 - 10:31:29 EST