Re: RTB vs Dick Fischer

Perhaps

But you (I mean not just you Dick Fischer, but you in a plural sense) need to develop a biblical apologetic for that theology in order for it to be considered anything but nonsense in most of the evangelical world.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: ASA
  Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 10:33 AM
  Subject: 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

  www.genesisproclaimed.org

     
Received on Sat Apr 15 13:03:30 2006