Hi John

Hello Deacon and thanks for your… question? … rebuttal?
…
I’m rather glad you volunteered the word “sniping,” because it did feel a bit like that!

Hmm, there is a balance in there somewhere if I can find it.

with regard to your first point, I was referring to the underlying Greek word; thus your reasoning that “inasmuch” supports one argument over the other, also misses my point (although even re. the English wording, I don’t personally see the “slam-dunk” that you apparently see);

The Greek is ef w ‘on that’. I am not a Greek expert and prepositions are complicated especially in constructions like this. It seems to be saying ‘on the basis of the fact that’. The ‘because’ in most translations seems reasonable. So it seems to mean: death spread to all men on the basis of the fact that… all sinned. Paul is just saying the death that came into the world through Adam effects those who sin. How do you read the ‘inasmuch’ in verse 12? If your point is simply that it is too complicated a construction to be dogmatic, that is fine, but if you have a specific reading of it I would like to hear. Anyway I’ll try to keep out of the plughole.

I’m afraid I can’t comprehend your enthusiasm for certainty with respect to dividing paradoxical truths which have stumped - or at least divided - theologians for millenia!

If I was happy to accept paradox, or as it was called where I grew up ‘mystery’ (…it’s a mystery, we cannot understand it, but we have to believe it) I would still accept that the Pope was infallible. I read the bible, got a hold of what it said, and held onto my opinions like a terrier. I love the opportunity to explore God’s word and try to understand what it says. I appreciate the approach that tries to understand different interpretations, but I also think we also should be ‘fully convinced in our own minds’ (without causing grief to our brothers, sorry if I have!). I think paradox is often the bible’s way of telling us to try look at the question from another angle, though in the end we will often have to accept our limitations and live with it.

would I then be correct in saying that the only way we can resolve this is if we are speaking about different forms of ‘death’ e.g. spiritual death, as seperation from God over against physical death? Otherwise (and it seems distasteful to raise it, apologies), how could babies, who’ve never broken a commandment, die?

This is probably key to my understanding of these verses. Paul is talking about spiritual death not physical. That is why he could say ‘sin seizing an opportunity … killed me’ Rom 7:11. I don’t see physical death as the result of the fall, rather the death Adam died the day he ate the fruit was a spiritual death. In my understanding, biological death was a part of the original creation. In Psalm 104 we read that lions looking to God for their prey, yet this is a psalm about the creation.

The death of children is a problem whether we say death came through the fall, or that physical death was part of the original creation, one says the world God created contains a lot more pain than we would like, the other that innocent children are somehow being punished for a sin they did not commit. Neither are easy to deal with.

I suppose my question is, can your understanding of Lamb Centred Atonement be described in a way that doesn’t depend on physical death originating with Adam, and by implication a young age for the universe and the planet? My concern about creationism is that it is often a stumbling block for those who are really seeking the truth and it is not necessarily what the bible actually teaches.

I don’t think you are trying to push creationism, your contributions to the monkey debate have been to preach tolerance and respect. Though the LCA is grounded in garden of Eden, can it be inclusive with room for both creationists and the bene qophim? How would Lamb Centred Atonement look if Adam and Eve was simply an allegorical story describing God’s relationship with early man? Or if an already mortal Adam died spiritually when he sinned and lost his access to eternal life?

I think it probably would be much better to post your own “take” on atonement, by way of an interesting comparison, rather than risk us both “drowning” in further details…

I followed up you link to the discussion on The Atonement - Atonement Theories http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/498 This is very good though sparse. Is there more information available on the three theories?

What knocked me back was Justin’s approach, coming from quite a different angle has a very similar take on the atonement to mine.

Basically my understanding of the atonement comes from Romans 6. Christ’s death and resurrection have their power because we share in what he went through. Whatever punishment is due to our sin, spiritual or physical death, we don’t escape it, so much as go through it in Christ. What would destroy us for all eternity on our own, becomes a way through to resurrection when we go through it in Christ.

The power of sin is broken in us because when we died in Christ we died to our sinful nature. Instead of being alive to sin and dead to God, we are now alive to God and dead to sin, though that bit can take a bit of working out! It is passing through the Red Sea and leaving all our enemies behind.

Blessing Deacon