Theologians gone wild

[pilgrim3970]

One writer that seems to be held in high esteem by those Episcopalians who left the Episcopal Church in the 70s is C.B. Moss.

However, I recently ran across a quote by him which I found astounding in its sheer arrogance and gross stupidity. Moss writes on the fall:

"Genesis 3 is an origin-myth, a story told by primitive people to explain the origin of something....St. Paul took Genesis 3 as literal history....But we cannot do so any longer, and we, therefore, have to reconstruct the Christian doctrine of the Fall in the light of what we know about the real character of the story of Adam and Eve."

Now some on another board that I am on dismiss this as a weakness that does not tarnish his worth as a theologian. However, To me this so undermines the Scriptures as well as the Gospel that I find it hard to take Moss seriously as a theologian of worth. The reply was that Luther had rejected James and Stott was an annihilationist so Moss should be given a pass. It seems to me that this is a weak argument since neither Luther nor Stott undermined the Scriptures or weakened the foundation of the Gospel with their teachings, as erroneous as they may have been on theese particular points. Further, their defense is like saying "don't drink from this side of the glass, it is laced with poison, drink from the other side".

This is precisely why I tend to mostly keep to the English Reformers and their contemporaries on the Continent

What say ye?