jbernier

Of course it requires exegesis; the very act of saying that it preaches "Federal Headship" is an act of exegesis.

Nonetheless, I think that you are missing the real thrust of this chapter. Why is it important for Paul to talk about Adam? Simple. He is trying to establish that both Jew and Gentile are in the same boat when it comes to God. Who is there common father in the Hebrew scriptures? Adam. Paul, of course, could have talked about Noah; that is the strategy that the Rabbis would later take in figuring out where the Gentiles fit into the picture. But Paul choose to go to Adam. Basically he is saying "Look, Jew, Gentile, Greek, barbarian, does not matter - you are all sinners, just like your father Adam." But then he flips this around: "Yeah, you are all sinners, just like your father Adam, but you all have equal access to the new life - life apart from that sin that you share with your father Adam - in Christ Jesus." He is asserting the oneness of the human condition and the oneness of salvation from that one human condition. To read this as a detailed mechanism for the origin and transmission of sin misses what Paul is really getting at: A very concrete statement about what it means to be human and to be in community with other humans in the here and now, not some abstract speculations about the
metaphysical origins of sin.

I must disagree. You can use Isaiah to interpret Paul if and only if you can demonstrate that Paul had Isaiah in mind when he was writing. Either way, thank you for explaining your exegetical method rather than just quoting the verse.

Warthur

What about people who are born mentally handicapped, who will never quite be able to understand the idea of salvation and sin and life after death?

I'm also amused by the idea that Jesus automatically forgives people when they are born, but then withdraws his protection as soon as they are old enough to answer back. It's very Old Testament.

Hedshaker

What a bewildering thread.

A clear indication of what utter nonsense is the notion of original sin, not to mention the appalling consequences of allowing ones mind to become spell bound by religion.

Rediculous :banghead:

Orbit

jbernier

So am I - which makes me seriously question this doctrine. I see it as little more than a band-aid which is trying to patch over the gaping holes in traditional evangelical soteriology.