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

[Assyrian]

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.

They are different because they describe the creation of man in different ways.

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures..." descibes God commanding the earth, natural process, to form living creatures.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth... describes this as God's work of creation. Behind all of the processes that occured as the eath carried out the will of it creator, it was God who created the animals.

Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field gives a much more vivid description of God's work of creation, as if God were a potter forming clay models with his hands.

But I don't see why Gen 2:7&19 should contradict Gen 1:24. They do if you take it literally, but as we have seen a lot of Gen 2 does contradicts Gen 1 if you take it literally. Here one chapter says God commanded the earth to produce life, the other that he stuck his hands in the mud and did it himself. But God as a potter, or making people out of clay is a common metaphor in scripture. I see no reason why we should take these verses to contradict the description in Gen 1:24.

 

[Willtor]

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.

I don't entirely know where TULIP comes from, but I think that it is often used to misrepresent what Calvin actually thought. It isn't misrepresented intentionally, I'm sure, but the notion of praying for salvation (or whatever else) for another person is certainly Calvinist. He discusses God's eternal will as being done, but he still points to the child who prays for his ailing father's health as the good son - the son who is obeying the commandment of God: to act in charity and to ask God for good to be done. He is the son that has the things of God in mind, even if it is God's will to take his father's life. He addresses the responsibility of man in this context.

My example to illustrate this from Scripture is David's attempt to build the temple. God affirms his attempt and says that it's good that he had it on his heart even though He doesn't want him to build it after all.

 

[busterdog]

I don't entirely know where TULIP comes from, but I think that it is often used to misrepresent what Calvin actually thought. It isn't misrepresented intentionally, I'm sure, but the notion of praying for salvation (or whatever else) for another person is certainly Calvinist. He discusses God's eternal will as being done, but he still points to the child who prays for his ailing father's health as the good son - the son who is obeying the commandment of God: to act in charity and to ask God for good to be done. He is the son that has the things of God in mind, even if it is God's will to take his father's life. He addresses the responsibility of man in this context.

My example to illustrate this from Scripture is David's attempt to build the temple. God affirms his attempt and says that it's good that he had it on his heart even though He doesn't want him to build it after all.

I would imagine Calvinism would pray as such. But is he not then acting like an Arminian?

The whole idea of the sovereignty of God is not a concept that any man has ever done a great job with, in my estimation. No matter what thesis you put up, you can punch holes in it.

 

[busterdog]

TULIP is not the sum total of reformed theology.

That's because reform theology teaches lots of Arminianism.

 

[theFijian]

That's because reform theology teaches lots of Arminianism.

lol! like I said, someone ought to have taught you reformed theology a bit better.

 

[Willtor]

I would imagine Calvinism would pray as such. But is he not then acting like an Arminian?

The whole idea of the sovereignty of God is not a concept that any man has ever done a great job with, in my estimation. No matter what thesis you put up, you can punch holes in it.

No, he actually writes about this in the context of his doctrine on Providence, not even on his section on man. In fact, Calvin thought that we had free will and choice. Merely, he took issue with someone who argued that free will was outside the Providence (and therefore, Predestination) of God. The issue is that a lot of what people think of Calvinism today, along with all this "Calvinism vs. Arminianism" and such, is not consistent with Calvin's actual theology. I wonder, actually, how much of this divide comes after the arrival of Arminianism.

 

[HypnoToad]

I see no reason why we should take these verses to contradict the description in Gen 1:24.

You're the one who said they mean different things. Now you say they don't. So, whatever, ok.

 

[busterdog]

lol! like I said, someone ought to have taught you reformed theology a bit better.

Don't talk down to me. It is unbecoming. I understand just fine.

 

[theFijian]

Don't talk down to me. It is unbecoming. I understand just fine.

Sorry but when you say that Reformed theology contains Arminianism when the two are antithetical, and suggest that to pray for someones salvation is contrary to reformed theology demonstrates that you understand little. Clearly you have mistaken hyper-Calvinism for the definitive article, you have not been taught properly.

 

[busterdog]

I don't entirely know where TULIP comes from, but I think that it is often used to misrepresent what Calvin actually thought. It isn't misrepresented intentionally, I'm sure, but the notion of praying for salvation (or whatever else) for another person is certainly Calvinist. He discusses God's eternal will as being done, but he still points to the child who prays for his ailing father's health as the good son - the son who is obeying the commandment of God: to act in charity and to ask God for good to be done. He is the son that has the things of God in mind, even if it is God's will to take his father's life. He addresses the responsibility of man in this context.

My example to illustrate this from Scripture is David's attempt to build the temple. God affirms his attempt and says that it's good that he had it on his heart even though He doesn't want him to build it after all.

Understood.

However, the idea of sovereign election only accomodates such ideas with difficulty. It is like taking an equation with two variables and trying to solve to a sum certain. Works for God, not for us.

 

[busterdog]

Sorry but when you say that Reformed theology contains Arminianism when the two are antithetical, and suggest that to pray for someones salvation is contrary to reformed theology demonstrates that you understand little. Clearly you have mistaken hyper-Calvinism for the definitive article, you have not been taught properly.

What I am saying is that if you take the letter of what Calvinism says, you have trouble. You need to read in and bend the language to accomodate all the rules. Chuck Missler thinks so. He's pretty smart. I have no problem with fuzzy boundaries for calvinism -- ie, the five points are more guidelines than actual rules.

Some Arminian ideas are less easy to clearly seperate out when that happens.

There is a style of Arminianism that obviously is over the top.

Personally, I find it very difficult to think in terms of sovereign election when praying for someone. I understand that I am attempting to be the tool through which sovereign election works. But, emotionally, you are looking for, asking for change. It may not be "change" from God's eternal perspective. But, to me it seems like "change"and I act like it is change.

 

[Willtor]

Understood.

However, the idea of sovereign election only accomodates such ideas with difficulty. It is like taking an equation with two variables and trying to solve to a sum certain. Works for God, not for us.

In some ways, grappling with the combination of free will and predestination has been related to the combination of evolution and creation in my studies. Thinking of human (or natural) causes in the context of God's election (or sovereignty over nature) is a divine mystery that people like Calvin and Aquinas (before him) handled quite well. It's ironic that Calvin, if anything, had more difficulty reasoning through eternal activity (arguing, for example, that the Father does not always beget the Son).