last night at bible study we did the final in our series based on Tim Keller's "The Reason For God". we looked at Sin, through the lens of Genesis 3:1-13, Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:21-26.
as you would know, i've just finished an essay on the consequences of denying an historical fall (here, here, and here). the position i finished at was that the idea of "the fall" is not what Genesis 3, nor the rest of the testimony of the bible, is trying to get across.
rather, as Karl Barth agreed with me, "the first man was immediately the first sinner." (CD IV.1 §508)
so as we discussed the idea of the fall, we didn't use the terminology of "fall", but analysed what the story said. and it said that sin consists of disobedience, selfishness, disrespect, but primarily trusting Satan's lies. we agreed that none of us would have been different, and that this grasping against God is something we all continue.
i can perhaps post some of the best bits of my essay a little later, but i just thought it would be helpful to show where this thinking has ended me up (if that sentence makes sense!).
5 comments:
check out some further thoughts and discussion at broken reflections
I was chatting about our conversation with a friend, and I was somewhat rebuked by what he said. I think I am too quick to criticise ambiguity. Barth, yourself and I all hold that a good God created a good creation. But my problem was that I didn't see what you were *not* saying... I think I've been struck by how important it is to articulate not only what you are saying clearly, but what you are also not saying clearly too... It doesn't need to be systematic, there can even be tension, but I think I need to learn the value of clarity and stating what we do and do not hold, especially when tension and ambiguity are present.
Thanks again for your thoughts Doug!
http://www.wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/wasadamhistorical.php#footnote4
A good essay from Westminster on this topic.
http://www.wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/wasadamhistorical.php#footnote4
Same comment with the full link...
cheers vic
an interesting article indeed.
although i've read some really good arguments for the historicity of the fall, i do find this guy pushes me away rather than towards. he's either just read that section of barth or he's not got how unique christ is according to barth.
and i know he says he's not a cranky conservative, but as soon as you put your opinion as true biblical christianity and everyone elses as not, you sort of are a cranky conservative.
he's ignored my fundamental problem (possibly because i was 9 at the time the article was written), namely the lack of any eschatology in a 'back to the garden' theology (with apologies to Rob Smith).
it's just a bit simplistic, ignoring the subtleties of the counterarguments.
cheers mate.
Post a Comment