Is the Fall of Man Central to the Gospel Message

Yep, if you can pick and choose the parts that you see as literal and allegorical based on your own theology, you have become the authority. In that case, the only limit to the intrepretation is the imagination of the interpreter.

That is why you will see me constantly appeal to a contextual literal grammatical historical hermeneutic. Anything less exalts the mind of man above the mind of God, as revealed in the Word of God. Professing themselves to be wise and all that...

 

Job 38:22
"Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, (NASB-U)

Todd

Consider the above scripture and apply your argument:

Yet, if you kick the foundations out from underneath the storehouses of the hail (as meteorologists do by asserting that Job 38:22 is allegorical), then you are left with absolutely no basis by which you can claim the storehouse of the hail is a reality. This is a problem that meteorologists can't get around, and so they have just chosen to say that "a literal storehouse of the hail is not crucial to a correct understanding of the Bible." That's just silly.

One might say, “That's just silly, everyone knows Job 38:22 is figurative or poetic, given our understanding of nature.” Yet, it is not obvious that the original readers of Job would have had the same figurative understanding that we do. They may well have seen the “storehouse of the hail” as quite literal. Obviously, the phenomenon of hail is a reality and in some sense there is a “place” where it is stored. We don’t have a problem with this scripture because whether we take it as literal or non-literal, we know hail is real (some fell in my yard yesterday).

I’m not advocating that Adam and Eve are non-literal. But, the scientific details of their existence or whether they had bellybuttons is not important in our understanding their seminal role, per the Bible, in bringing about the reality of the depraved state in which we find ourselves and which the Holy Spirit convicts us.

I’m not trying to be flip about this topic. I’m just trying to illustrate the viewpoint Bible believing macro evolutionists may take, trying to reconcile the Bible and science. The truth is the truth, whether we understand it or not, this side of heaven.

 

Michael, I think you should note that Adam was the FEDERAL head, not seminal head of the human race. Thanks.

 

DD, please forgive me. I'm just an ignorant layman, thinking out loud. I'll have to study on that Federal/seminal thing. Maybe I should have said, "pivotal."

 

Federal is the representative view.

Seminal is the view that we participated in the same sin.

 

Simplified:

A person must understand that he is a sinner (fallen) before he can properly seek salvation in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. He does not necessarily need to understand the details of THE FALL.

So, a person must accept that he is fallen, but may not understand THE fall, as prerequisite to salvation.

Yes? or, no?

 

I would fully agree. But of course I hold to a literal creation account, 6 days. If it is not literal was the 4th commandment literal, or allegorical? Why would God insist on literal Sabbath observance with violations punishable by death for a figurative allegorical event?

Here is a thought, could a person accept the concept of personal sin while at the same time rejecting a literal six day creation and subsequent fall? I think so. They would understand that they are a sinner and in need of salvation, even if they did not have the basis for their sin in the right box.

Personally, I don’t really understand how some can pick and choose the parts they accept as literal based on their theology or their understanding of science and then believe themselves bound by any part of the Bible at all. On the other hand, I do recognize that most of the conservative theologians in the early part of th 20th century were theistic evolutionists in response to the popular onslaught of Darwinism. Personally, I would never go so far as to say that someone could not be saved if they rejected a literal six day creation.

 

NKJV John 16
7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
8 "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

If the doctor says I have cancer, I don't need to know the "why" of it to submit to the cure.


HankD

 

Yep. That was my point.

 

Consider:

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Isn't what is literal or non-literal sometimes in the eye (theology, worldview, etc) of the beholder?

 

M52,

Yes, to some degree. However it is essential to compare Scripture with Scripture.

In your example compare with the last supper accounts. Jesus broke the bread and handed them the cup. HE DID NOT BREAK OF A FINGER OR BLEED INTO THE CUP! Transubstantiation is not supported by contextual analysis, therefore, literal and non-literal is not left soley to the imagination of the reader.

Regarding the sin issue, Paul says:

"For as by one man sin entered into the world" (Rom 5:12)

Jesus spoke of the creation account in literal terms in Matt 19:
4 ...Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

To reject a literal creation account is to reject a literal interpretation of the Words of Jesus as well. Where does it stop?

 

Todd,

Sorry. Did not mean to miss your point.

Was thinking more in terms of the OP and whether it was an essential part of the gospel presentation. Certainly agree that it is central to our faith, as in my most recent post, a couple of posts above this one.

 

rjprince

You, also rejected the literal interpretation of the Words of Jesus.

But, I assume you would also agree that Jesus was trying to tell us something very important, which is the truth beyond the literal, face value of his words in John 6:53. Which is more important, what Jesus literally said or what Jesus really meant?

Jesus obviously meant for us to take His words to heart, else we would not have it in the scripture. If we don't take literal transubstantiation from the passage, then certainly there is some "literal" truth He is trying to convey. From the Baptist persuasion: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (John 6:63) Which, I think, is the important point to understand from John 6.

Similarly, taking Gen 1-11 literally or non-literally does not diminish the truth of what God is telling us about Adam, Eve and ourselves. One might read it as literal, yet still not understand it and, worse, still be lost!

 

Todd

Welcome, back at you, from another East Tennesseean.

I understand your point. I also understand the other point.

I think it is important to tell others of the Fall and the role of Adam and Eve as related in the Bible. The Fall in Genisis helps put the nature of our souls in a context where we can understand what our experience tells us.

I personally, tell the Bible story in a strait forward manner (ie literally). I think, the only embellishment (beyond the literal) necessary is to try to allow the hearers to place themselves in the context of the first humans to hopefully grasp the similarities to there own experience. Extra-biblical doctrines and scientific theories just confuse and frustrate people. We should stick to what the Bible says. The Holy Spirit is in charge of helping us figure out what it means in each persons life.

 

M52,

re missing the "literal" words of Jesus, sorry. I often just use the term "literal" when I really mean contextual literal grammatical historical -- in consideration of the context, both immediate and other; literal understanding of the words; the literal balance with the grammar of the text knowing that sometimes figures of speech and allegory are a part of normal grammatical style; and historical in the sense of the normal use of the language, figures, sentence structure, rules of grammar, etc. So when I speak of a literal interpretation, I usually mean a CLGH hermeneutic as opposed to allegorical or spiritual.