John, the concept of the fall and original sin is basic 101 theology.
Unfortunately, many of the modern theologians ignore the subject
completely,
so it might appear to you to be only an assumption. Not true. There is
much literature on this, so much so that I hardly know which to point you
toward. I just did a quick search and found the following Catholic
article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
You might start there, but there is a whole lot more out there.
The basic concept is very sound. Death is related to sin, and it is
believed that death as well as sin passed upon men through Adam's fall.
There also is observed a heightened propensity for sin in man because man
universally falls into sin. In contrast, two-thirds of the heavenly
creatures did not sin.
In modern times, the idea is attacked by the theory of evolution, which
leads some theologians to think that death was not introduced into the
world
through Adam, but rather Adam was a major development in the evolutionary
scale as man progresses towards immortality and perfection. If death was
not
introduced to mankind by Adam, then neither was sin. If that is true,
then
there was no sin of Adam which condemned mankind into a fallen state with
a
propensity toward sin.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??
And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by Judy.
In addition, I think Judy's attachment to her thinking concerning the
"generational curse" is a huge problem as well.
As for me, I just do not see a change in human nature with the event of
the
fall. In fact, the fall is only possible because of a nature that
provided
for the opportunity of disobedience. How is that not true?
I have said this several times before and I say it again: in all of my
reading, to date, I have yet to discover an actual apologetic for the
theology of the "fall." Does such exist? How could it not? But so
far,
I can't even find the pickle. Where's the beef, I say ?? !!
I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of specific
and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" theology,
but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in the most
meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or paper entitled "A Theology
of
the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'"
or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or ..................
well
, you get the picture. Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an
assumption , even in Barth !!
Understand, I have been in this theological persuasion for little more
than
a year. There is much (even in Barth) that I have not read. Actually,
"much" is an understatement of grand proportions. But I have looked for
such an explanation without success.
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
I think the stumbling block for those coming from a viewpoint like Judy's
is
that Jesus could not have been an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to
take
our penalty--if he were blemished in any way, and having a fallen nature
(not unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The answer (as I
understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a
sacrifice
for us. Like Bill says, there is more than the legal transaction
happening.
He is 'bending human nature back', purifying it, by his obedient life, his
steadfast refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the
fallen nature to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human
in
every sense, which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to
ours.
Just the legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix
the fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too.
I
remember TFT insisting that wron g views of who Jesus was always end up
losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or
both).
D
From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:19 PM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
----- Original Message -----
From: Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 22, 2006 12:41
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I view Christ as Wholly
God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and
David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature was no lower than a
Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But
at
least I have a field to be alone in:-)
Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree emphatically that Christ was holy
and
pure and did not sin. The last time this topic was a point of contention
here on TT, David wrote some really good posts on Christ's holiness and
purity, and how it was that neither of these were compromised by his human
condition. Perhaps he can find time to revisit that concern.
The major difference between a belief in Jesus as having a human nature
other than ours -- some sort of a pre-fallen nature -- and the belief that
Jesus was born as we are, a subject of the fall, is that whereas our
battle
against sin is an internal battle, his would have been external to who he
was in his human nature. His plight would have been to keep sin out,
whereas
ours is to get it out. As Christians, we are called to put sin to death
"in
our members." Jesus, in his lifetime, would not have had that battle, and
hence could not have helped us, as his would have been a fortress
mentality:
just keep sin out of his members and he will have proven it can be done.
Well, that is not only not helpful to us -- as we've already missed out on
that opportunity -- it leaves us in an even more disparate condition,
since
Christ only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin in the way that we
experi
ence it. And if he only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin from within
our plight, then all he can really do is become our offering for sin (not
that he is not that, too). Thus he may be our perpetual bull or goat, but
don't call him our example, because he isn't an example to us, in that we
never get to walk in his steps, as ours is altogether a different starting
place than his.
The best then that your view can offer is a substitutionary theory of the
atonement (and again not that Christ was not also our substitute). Yours
is
that God takes Christ's righteousness and imputes it to us and takes our
sin
and imputes it to him -- a legal transaction, if you will, but not a
helpful
one since we are still in our sin, it not having been defeated in our
members. And so, even this double imputation is lacking in your view;
indeed, it is a legal fiction: God declares us righteous, when we're not;
and he winks at his Son, saying: "I'll call you sin, even though we all
know
you're not"; hence it is fiction on both accounts. On the contrary, see 2
Corinthians 5.21: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that
we
might become the righteousness of God in Him." God sent his Son, perfect
from eternity, to earth, and cloaked him in human form from the fruit of
David's genitals according to the flesh -- that is, replete with David's
nature,&nbs p;which is "Sin" with a capital S -- in order that he might
defeat sin where in resides in sinful humanity, so that we might
experience
genuine righteousness and not the kind you have to wink at.
Look with me at Mark 7.20-23 and at James 4.1, and ask yourself if a man
who
does not have a fallen or "Sin" nature (your kind of Jesus) could actually
be tempted in every way like his brothers:
And [Jesus] said, "It is what comes out of a man, that defiles him. For
from
within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries,
fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness,
an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come
from
within and defile a man."
Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your
desires for pleasure that war in your members?
Could a man who does not have a nature of "Sin" actually experience the
desire to act upon these things that war within us? In other words, could
a
man who does not have a human nature like we do truly be tempted to behave
in the way that we do? Of course not! Our battle comes from within; his
would be to wall it out. Temptation for him would be an external battle;
ours is the opposite of that (as attested to above). Ours is intrinsic to
who we are as fallen human beings. His would be extrinsic to his nature.
His
plight would be to keep sin out, while ours is to get it out of our
members.
Hence, he would have nothing in common with us and nothing to offer us.
Ah but that is not the case with Jesus. He can relate because he was
tempted
in every way that we are, yet was sinless, in that he did not act upon the
desires of his heart; instead he defeated those desires in obedience to
his
Father. For inasmuch as we have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself
likewise shared in the same, having been made like us in every detail, in
order that "he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things
pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people; for in
that he himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to aid those who
are
tempted" (See Heb 4.15, and 2.14-18). Amen
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:26 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
Dean, that is a different position all-together from Judy's. My question
for
you is, did you realize what you were affirming when answering my
question?
Bill
cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I view Christ as Wholly
God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and
David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature was no lower than a
Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But
at
least I have a field to be alone in:-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 1/20/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 1/20/2006
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
