Yes, let me support David's position on this. There may be scoffers at the notion of the Fall, but it seems to be a historical vs. literal hang-up rather than a theological one. When David says "we need to treasure the fact that God gave us this picture," this should take precedence over someone arguing: 'But science shows us how incorrect the two literal persons view is.' It may be best to leave this question open so that multiple views are respected with space to hold these views protected rather than claiming righteously one single 'right' view.
When George worries about whether 'human nature' itself is "sinful and disobedient," I can't help but cringe when 'nature' is used in this sense. If the word 'character' was substituted, nothing substantial would be lost, would it? However, the mild danger, for those people especially careful with meanings, is that a 'human nature' explored only with natural sciences will never discover or promote the meaning of sin to human beings. Nor will it penetrate purpose, salvation or other types of teleology because natural sciences are supposed to exclude first and final causes.
Thus, the story of the Fall is neither purely theological, nor purely a historical-physical fact or not-fact. There are psychological, sociological and anthropological implications also.
G.
David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you George. And, I think we have to be very careful about "scoffing" at the notion of the fall. Let's remember that throughout Church history, most Christians did indeed believe that "a real man and a real woman ate a piece of fruit they weren't supposed to." Let's also remember that, however exactly we take that narrative todayin terms of its precise historiography, it is the narrative God gave us in the Bible concerning human rebellion against God. We need to treasure the fact that God gave us this picture, rather than make fun of it.
On 7/28/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote: While Genesis 3 should not be read as historical narrative, & while of course not all death, suffering &c can be attributed to "the fall," we get into difficulties if we make the story only a theological statement about our own sinfulness. The question of an origin of sin in the first humans has to be dealt with - otherwise we're likely to be in the position of saying that human nature itself is "sinful and disobedient" and that therefore God is the creator of sin. Gen.3 is indeed a theological statement about the fact that all human beings sin, and thus about the fact that the first humans (whoever & whenever & wherever they were) sinned. Again I'll refer to my recent PSCF article at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Murphy.pdf .
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Iain Strachan
To: David Opderbeck
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?
It would of course take too long to give a full explanation as to why God allows bad things to happen. But I can't accept that it was _literally_ due to one historical woman and her husband eating a piece of fruit. My example was to show how unacceptable a literal interpretation is. The account is clearly an allegory of our own sinful and disobedient nature and our need for salvation.
Iain
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 28 12:34:34 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 28 2007 - 12:34:34 EDT