Have you ever seen a TE claim that Creationists are not saved because of Creationism?

[archaeologist]

Uhm, so your using man's commentary to justify your position? I really don't care for any of it. Just because these men "think" this is what it means, does not make it so.

sure enough, someone has come forth and proven my point made in another thread.

your whole post is ignored until you come up with credible sources to back up your point of view.

 

[Assyrian]

not at all. your limited understanding undermines you here.

Do you think you could address willtor's point without resorting to insults?

i would disagree. from mathew henry:

from Beet's commentary:

from adam clarke:

So these are the credible sources, authorities and scholars you keep going on about? What makes you think the argument is any more meaningful if it is written in 18th and 19th century commentaries than if you made point yourself? It is not as if the writers are around to discuss the point. Other than that it is just their human opinion and interpretation. At least when you give your opinion, you are here to defend it.

from adam clarke:

And death by sin
— Natural evil is evidently the effect of moral evil; if
man had never sinned, he had never suffered. Dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return, was never spoken till after Adam had eaten the​

forbidden fruit.

you notice that God's curse brought in physical death after adam had sinned. which some people here seemtoignore so they can justify their thinking.

Clarke's argument simply does not follow. A description of conditions after the fall does not tell us the conditions before the fall. If Adam would not have died before the fall, was it because he was immortal, or was he perishable flesh and blood before too, but with access to the 'tree of life'?

Beet's commentary:

This argument is Paul’s proof of the teaching in
<450512>Romans 5:12 that all
men die because Adam sinned. It is true that all have sinned and that death
is the penalty of sin prescribed to Adam in Paradise and afterwards in the
Law given to Israel. But the universal reign of death long before Moses

cannot be an infliction of the penalty threatened to him. It must therefore be

an infliction on Adam&#8217;s children of the penalty laid upon him (<010319>Genesis
3:19) for his first transgression.
The above argument is not invalidated by the law written in the heart, by
which, as we read in <450214>Romans 2:14, 15, they who have not received the
Mosaic Law will be judged and punished. For this law belongs to the inner
and unseen world, and in that unseen world its penalty will be inflicted. The
punishment of bodily death belongs to the outer and visible world; and
therefore cannot be inflicted in fulfilment of a law written only within.​

​

That seems a particularly groundless claim. Why should a sin that goes against your conscience only be punished inward penalty? Especially if the sin against your conscience involves outward visible behaviour, like murdering you brother.​

Beet continued:​

A similar argument may be drawn from the death of infants. Upon them,
though innocent of actual sin, the punishment of death is inflicted. This
proves that they come into the world sharing the punishment, and therefore
in effect the sin, of Adam. But it suited Paul better to use an argument
which keeps the Law before his readers. The case of infants confirms the
conclusion at which, by another path, Paul arrived.
Notice that to Paul death is essentially and always the penalty of sin. He
sees men die; and inquires for whose sin the penalty is inflicted. His view is​

141
confirmed by the fact that both in Paradise and at Sinai God threatened to
punish sin by death, and thus set it apart from all natural processes as a
mark of His anger.​

No, the death of infants actually disproves his point. Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. Paul not only says that death came through sin, but he explains how this death spreads through the human race. It spreads to them because they sin. Babies have not sinned. The death Paul is talking about in Romans 5:12 does not apply to them. When heartbreakingly, babies do die, it is not the result of the fall, not the way Paul describes it here.​

We find a similar argument in Matthew Henry:

His inference hence is, Therefore there was a

law; for

sin is not imputed where there is no law. Original sin is a want of

conformity to, and actual sin is a transgression of, the law of God:
therefore all were under some law. His proof of it is, Death reigned from
Adam to Moses, v. 14. It is certain that death could not have reigned if sin
had not set up the throne for him. This proves that sin was in the world
before the law, and original sin, for death reigned over those that had not
sinned any actual sin, that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression, never sinned in their own persons as Adam did &#8212; which is
to be understood of infants, that were never guilty of actual sin, and yet
died, because Adam's sin was imputed to them. This reign of death seems
especially to refer to those violent and extraordinary judgments which
were long before Moses, as the deluge and the destruction of Sodom,
which involved infants. It is a great proof of original sin that little
children, who were never guilty of any actual transgression, are yet liable
to very terrible diseases, casualties, and deaths, which could by no means
be reconciled with the justice and righteousness of God if they were not​

chargeable with guilt.



​

Here we have the weirdest argument for original sin. Henry admits that innocent children dying because of sin could not be reconciled with the justice and righteousness of God. He then goes on to claim that it is alright because they were chargeable with someones else's guilt. How can an innocent child who is not guilty of any actual sin, be charged with someone else's sin, and call that reconcilable with the justice and righteousness of God???​

​

 

[Assyrian]

sure enough, someone has come forth and proven my point made in another thread.

your whole post is ignored until you come up with credible sources to back up your point of view.

theIdi0t referred to Genesis 3:22, 1Corinthians 15 and Romans 5:15. Are you saying these are not credible sources?

 

[shernren]

What a ridiculous argument. "Babies die, therefore original sin"? And here's the reasoning of the argument:

"People die because they're guilty. Babies die. Hence they have to be guilty of something. That's the only way we can have a fair God: if He makes babies pay for things they could never even conceive doing."

I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a massive failure of creativity on one level and sheer human empathy on another.

In all their obsessing about physical death, maybe they should have paid some attention to what Jesus said.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
(Matthew 10:28 NIV)

 

[theFijian]

How can an innocent child who is not guilty of any actual sin, be charged with someone else's sin, and call that reconcilable with the justice and righteousness of God???

I don't really see how this is such a big issue. Wasn't Christ charged with our sin? Aren't we counted as righteous even though we are, in actual fact, unrighteous? Adam's sin was imputed to us just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

theIdi0t referred to Genesis 3:22, 1Corinthians 15 and Romans 5:15. Are you saying these are not credible sources?

It is not the first time he has done so.

 

[busterdog]

Good grief! The Arminians are invading!

Kidding. Isn't it interesting though? We are saved by grace through faith, not that anyone may boast but that in all God may be glorified. This both means that there is no room for anyone to question my salvation, and no room for me to boast about it either as if it was something I did or earned or deserved. Call me a non-Christian? Well - that, but for the grace of God, I indeed would've been.

Having said that, I think it's quite illegitimate for people to question the salvation of evolutionists for a very different reason - if someone is sincerely considering the issue of origins and the relation of science to Scripture, that's already a massive enough bugbear in itself, what with the recent press about evolution and atheism and all that. Compounding that with "I might go to hell?" stuff is only going to cloud the brain infinitely more. People thinking through these things need clear minds, not threats to their faith.

Yeah, the Arminians. I think I am on board with all five points of Calvinism, but there are also good reasons to act and speak like an Arminian at times. Even Paul did. Its just a wierd area and while the concepts of Calvinism are reasonable, the bright-line boundaries don't work all that well because of the trippy/eternal nature of the subject matter. For example, my VERY reform church will pray for people to be saved.

I think you raise a good question about the context in which one were to question salvation. It ought to be done carefully and with grace.

 

[theFijian]

For example, my VERY reform church will pray for people to be saved.

...and....? Is that un-reformed in your opinion?

 

[archaeologist]

theIdi0t referred to Genesis 3:22, 1Corinthians 15 and Romans 5:15. Are you saying these are not credible sources?

before misrepresenting what i say, you should ask first, then comment. i was referring to his intial statement of rejecting man's commentary. well sorry but man's commentaries help us understand scripture.

What makes you think the argument is any more meaningful if it is written in 18th and 19th century commentaries than if you made point yourself

so you are saying that God's gifts of wisdom and understanding are limited to the 21st century? even men of old had access to the same knowledge and wisdom of God that everyone has today, if they take advantage of it.

It is not as if the writers are around to discuss the point. Other than that it is just their human opinion and interpretation.

again avoiding the truth when it is convenient.

A description of conditions after the fall does not tell us the conditions before the fall.

read the curse.

No, the death of infants actually disproves his point

no, it doesn't. it shows how thorough God is and that no one is exempt from His punishment.

How can an innocent child who is not guilty of any actual sin, be charged with someone else's sin, and call that reconcilable with the justice and righteousness of God???

that is one of the results of the fall of man. even though we are innocent, so to speak, of adam's sin, we still have to pick the thorns out of the ground thousands of years later.

(another proof for the literal reading of genesis.)

why do babies die in car accidents? they didn't commit the sins of their parents but they are subject to death regardless of their innocence.

God doesn't play favorites, nor does he repeat the same action over and over and over for each family. there was one first sin which brought the curse to all.

 

[TomBormat]

Archie, have you removed the cross icon from your name/title? Does this mean you've lost your faith?

Say it isn't so!

 

[crawfish]

before misrepresenting what i say, you should ask first, then comment. i was referring to his intial statement of rejecting man's commentary. well sorry but man's commentaries help us understand scripture.

Are you going to address those scriptures, or are you simply going to ignore the fact a valid rebuttal of your commentary analysis came directly from the Word of God?

so you are saying that God's gifts of wisdom and understanding are limited to the 21st century? even men of old had access to the same knowledge and wisdom of God that everyone has today, if they take advantage of it.

Are you familiar with the concept of "building knowledge"? Those commentaries have been analyzed and critiqued by many in the subsequent centuries. Since they were definitely NOT literally God speaking through them, can't we assume that their ideas could continually be refined?

again avoiding the truth when it is convenient.

Irony meter=off the chart. Please answer my first inquiry (or: theidiot's question).

 

[theIdi0t]

sure enough, someone has come forth and proven my point made in another thread.

your whole post is ignored until you come up with credible sources to back up your point of view.

I dismissed them because they were meaningless commentaries. You were presenting them as if the names Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke give them some weight. What they said was not even supported by scripture. They just put their non-biblical opinions into their commentary, so I see no reason why I should provide them such special weight, as if they were scripture writers themselves.

I could have perhaps pulled some other commentaries to pit it out between Matthew Henry: "See this person said this, and that person said that", wouldn't really get us too far now would it?

I used scripture to support my case, you should scripture to support yours since we are talking about "scripture". Scripture vs. Scripture.

So perhaps you can return to the previous post, and provide a rebuttal based on scripture?

 

[busterdog]

...and....? Is that un-reformed in your opinion?

Praying for the salvation of a person does not fit the five basic theses, as they are written. But you can always add an asterix to make it fit as an exception. This simply means your five simple formulations are pointing to things that are not so simple and the five points of Calvinism should be taken with a grain of salt. Romans and Ephesians are pretty clear that there is a sovereign election -- I just don't think we understand that election.

 

[HypnoToad]

There is a difference between God made animals out of earth and the earth produced animals. In the second it is the earth that does the producing, just as science is discovering.

If you believe there's a difference, then man couldn't evolve as animals did, because the earth produced animals, while man was made from the earth.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't really see how this is such a big issue. Wasn't Christ charged with our sin? Aren't we counted as righteous even though we are, in actual fact, unrighteous? Adam's sin was imputed to us just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

However it works, Jesus bore the cost of saving us willingly. We also willingly share in his righteousness. Laying down you life to save your friends is not unjust. Charging an innocent and unwitting child with someone else's sin and sentencing them to the death does not sound just to me.

 

[Assyrian]

before misrepresenting what i say, you should ask first, then comment. i was referring to his intial statement of rejecting man's commentary. well sorry but man's commentaries help us understand scripture.

theIdi0T: Uhm, so your using man's commentary to justify your position? I really don't care for any of it. Just because these men "think" this is what it means, does not make it so.

Archie: sure enough, someone has come forth and proven my point made in another thread.
your whole post is ignored until you come up with credible sources to back up your point of view.

You need a source to show you were using a man's commentary? It is evident from your post where you quote the commentary. You need a source to show that the statements in these commentaries are what the commentators think? Is there another alternative?

Whatever you were referring to, you said he hadn't come up with credible sources when he did: Genesis 3:22, 1Corinthians 15 and Romans 5:15. How do you justify claiming he didn't come up with credible sources?

so you are saying that God's gifts of wisdom and understanding are limited to the 21st century? even men of old had access to the same knowledge and wisdom of God that everyone has today, if they take advantage of it.

Hardly the same knowledge. Two of them had never even heard of Darwin, Matthew Henry wrote before the beginning of modern Geology. They all wrote before the Fundamentalist debate on the meaning of Genesis at the start of the 20th century, so they are hardly in a position to give wise counsel on the issues.

If you think God was giving them insight into scientific issues before the science was discovered you will have to provide evidence that God did this in past with other questions. Did Christian commentators understand the meaning of the geocentrist passages in scripture before Copernicus showed it was the earth that moved.

These are good wise men, but still men. They did not face the issues we are debating and they are not here to answer questions about what they wrote. If you agree with their ideas, you argue the case, and defend it too. But don't think we will simply accept it because they say so. Test everything. Hold onto what is good.

again avoiding the truth when it is convenient.

Accusation of cowardice instead of answering the point.

A description of conditions after the fall does not tell us the conditions before the fall.

read the curse.

No that doesn't tell us either. Here's an idea. Instead of vaguely indicating a passage of scripture, how about quoting it and showing how it is supposed to back your point?

no, it doesn't. it shows how thorough God is and that no one is exempt from His punishment.

Punishment for what? The children have not sinned.

It is amazing the way you select snippets of peoples posts and ignore the main argument. Here is what I said and I have highlighted the bit you quoted in red.

Originally posted by Assyrian
No, the death of infants actually disproves his point. Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. Paul not only says that death came through sin, but he explains how this death spreads through the human race. It spreads to them because they sin. Babies have not sinned. The death Paul is talking about in Romans 5:12 does not apply to them. When heartbreakingly, babies do die, it is not the result of the fall, not the way Paul describes it here.

You make some claim about God being thorough without showing how it applies here, and you completely ignore the actual discussion of the passage we are dealing with.

that is one of the results of the fall of man. even though we are innocent, so to speak, of adam's sin, we still have to pick the thorns out of the ground thousands of years later. (another proof for the literal reading of genesis.)

Is every man a farmer?

why do babies die in car accidents? they didn't commit the sins of their parents but they are subject to death regardless of their innocence.

Because we live in a perishable, material world, the world God created. According to the bible, immortality and the resurrection is something God has in store for us in the future. Until then we live in a frail world.

God doesn't play favorites, nor does he repeat the same action over and over and over for each family. there was one first sin which brought the curse to all.[/quote]
Show from scripture where babies dying is the result of the fall.

 

[Assyrian]

If you believe there's a difference, then man couldn't evolve as animals did, because the earth produced animals, while man was made from the earth.

If you are talking about Gen 2 the description of forming man and animals is very similar Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field. Anyway Ecclesiastes say we are animals

 

[HypnoToad]

If you are talking about Gen 2 the description of forming man and animals is very similar Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field.

No, I'm talking about ch.1 and ch.2. If "the earth produced" is, as you stated, what science agrees with, and is, as you also stated, different than "formed out of the earth", then man was produced by a method different than evolution.

 

[theFijian]

Praying for the salvation of a person does not fit the five basic theses, as they are written.

Someone ought to have told you that TULIP is not the sum total of reformed theology.

 

[Jadis40]

the Bible is not responsible for the decisions of people or their interpretations. this includes those who subscribe to alternatives.

True. But there are certain men who take the Bible, come to a certain conclusion about what a particular verse or set of verses state, and then state that anyone who disagrees with their own particular interpretation isn't really a Christian.

There's a recent example of this. They were known as Landmark Baptists. They basically went so far as to say that if you weren't baptized by someone in their church, then your baptism isn't really valid. Talk about driving a stake of division through the body of Christ.

There's more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism and here http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/landmark.htm

not at all ,for salvation is found in the Bible not science. if you disbelieve genesis, then it is highly likely you will disbelieve other things God says which means you will be led astray.

Who says we disbelieve Genesis? We've read Genesis 1-11 numerous times. We just believe that by studying the world that God has created, that it's much older than 6,000-10,000 years. I believe that God alone is responsible for the creation of the universe, but I also believe that it's on the magnitude of 13+ billion years, while this planet is 4.6 billion years old. What it boils down to is a matter of interpretation.