RE: RTB vs Dick Fischer

Hi Jack, you wrote:
 
Whatever ones view of original sin is, if it is not that we inherit
biologically the sin of Adam, then it would depart from traditional
Christian reformed doctrine. According to the WCF (Chapter VI number
III):
 
"They (Adam and Eve) being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this
sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed
to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation."
(emphasis mine}
  
Of course the WCF is not authoritative, and they could be wrong. My
point is that, if in a model of human origins Adam is not the physical
ancestor of all human beings, then that model has some work to do
theologically to redefine the doctrine of original sin. A big
undertaking imo.
 
When reality contradicts theology, theology must conform to reality. It
won't work the other way around. Had they known enough about
anthropology they might have reached a different conclusion. That was
my starting point. I studied anthropology and paleo-anthropology first,
and only then did I even read Genesis. Done in that order everything
fell into place. Admittedly, few people would do it that way.
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
 
Received on Sat Apr 15 10:34:02 2006