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

From: Jonathan Clarke (jdac@alphalink.com.au)
Date: Sat Feb 23 2002 - 05:20:06 EST

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

    Hi Robert

    I have seen frequent allusions by various people in many places to the eastern
    view of the fall, but never a clear exposition of it. Would you care to
    enlighten me? They sound interesting.

    Jon

    Robert Schneider wrote:

    > I agree, Burgy. It might be worthwhile mentioning that the doctrine of
    > original sin is a western Christian conception and not part of the body of
    > doctrine of eastern Christianity. The concept of the Fall is not
    > inextricably connected with the doctrine of original sin in the eyes of
    > eastern theologians. And there have always been western Christians (myself
    > included) who have thought that O.S. is neither an adequate theological
    > explanation for human sinfulness nor a prerequisite for God's act of
    > salvation in Christ.
    >
    > Bob Schneider
    > rjschn39@bellsouth.net
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "John W Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
    > To: <ateo@whitworth.edu>
    > Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 7:24 PM
    > Subject: Re: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")
    >
    > > Adrian wrote: "I fail to see how the doctrine of original sin can be
    > > reconciled with
    > > a purely evolutionary framework that denies the special creation of
    > > humans."
    > >
    > > Then maybe the "doctrine of original sin" is what needs to be challenged?
    > >
    > > John Burgeson (Burgy)
    > >
    > > http://www.burgy.50megs.com
    > > (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
    > > humor, cars, philosophy and much more)
    > >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 05:55:22 EST