Age of Accountability

Temple wrote:
> So, God lied and used myth to convey His never changing truth?

BWS: God doesn't lie. Myth is a symbolic vehicle for truth.

 

BW Smith:
What the inspired Apostle Paul believed to be historically accurate has nothing to do with anything? Excuse me, but I would believe Paul over any seminary professor any day -- especially someone who read Genesis symbolically instead of literally.

That's the problem with that type of hermeneutics. Once you start saying well, this is symbolic and this is literal and this is this etc, you make the bible or anyother book say anything you want it to. Obviously there are verses in the bible that cannot be taken literally -- heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. No foot sitting here. But, as a general rule, I take the bible verses to mean what the author at the time was trying to say to the ordinary people he wrote to. What would those people understood by what the author was trying to convey. I guess, the whole purpose of language -- even a modernist would have to agree with that.

You keep talking about "personal sin." I guess you are denying that Adam (a actual historical person, I believe) was acting as our Federal Representative (Romans 5). We did not sin in the manner of Adam,but the guilt of his sin was passed on to all, and through sin, death. Babies do die.
We did not participate in the personal sin of Adam, and we don't participate in the personal righteousness of Christ. Both are imputed. The penalty of Adam's sin to mankind. The righteousness of Christ to all those He died for.
I think that is very liberal and -- oh yes -- tolerant of you to "respect the right of Baptists to believe that homosexuals can or should be ministers." Are you saying those are morally equivalent positions. Or do you agree that ALL practicing homosexuals should be banned from being a minister?
I don't respect the view of anyone that would agree with that idea.

I don't contradict myself. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Babies are born depraved and without hope, unless they are regenerated, chosen and justified by a Sovereign God.

I know most people think sin is a mistake, or a short-coming, or an error, but God seems to hold a much more serious view of it.

The historical-critical method, actually coming about around the time of the "Enlightment" has done NOTHING for the understanding of the bible, other than giving jobs to many totally lost seminary professors to pretend to be christians and earn a living all the while being unbelievers. Now, I didn't say ALL professors -- probably not more than 90 per cent or so.
By the way, I'm not the one picking or choosing what I want to believe. I guess to sum up my beliefs alot better than I can I would say I accept the Westminister Confession, the Canons of Dort and the 1689, I think the year is right, Baptist Confession of Faith.

I even believe that when the bible mentions Israel it means Israel and not the church, even tho the expression the Israel of God is mentioned in Galations.

Never did agree with the idea that God can make unconditional covenants with Israel and modernists come alone and say no, no, you guys got it wrong. Don't you poor, uneducated, fundmentalists get it. Israel means the Church. I have to admit it. I don't get it.
I believe when the bible says Israel will possess the land forever, I believe Israel will posses the land forever. But that's another whole story.
One other thing. If you do not believe that All have sinned and need a savior, why did Christ die? Why the atonement? Atonement for what? If one person, other that the second person of the Trinity, could have lived a sinless life, then others could have. No death of Christ needed.

I know there are professors out there that deny Christ was even raised from the dead. He was just raised "in our hearts." That's fine with me. They can believe and inflict there teachings on their students. For me, I'll stay a bible-thumping, radical fundamentalists and leave all the "scholars" to try to tear the bible to pieces.
One more question: I mentioned the Unitarian-pagan church. You said maybe there is not a branch in the area for some of these liberal, lost people. Are you saying that you see no major difference between the normal Baptist Church and the Unitiaran church? In other words, the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ is taught equally in both churches? Are you saying that it makes no difference for a Christian which one he attends?

We do seem to disagree on most things. We will not settle those differences here. But it was nice discussing these points with you.

I believe that salvation is from God ALONE. A free gift to whomever He chooses to give salvation to. Not for anything foreseen in the sinner, or for any good works, but because of His Sovereign will. He chooses to elect some (obviously a selection) and not others.

 

JAMES2 wrote:
> What the inspired Apostle Paul believed to be historically accurate has nothing to do with anything?

BWS: I never said it had nothing to do with anything (it does when it comes to women covering their heads), I said that it DOESN'T MATTER.

> Excuse me, but I would believe Paul over any seminary professor any day -- especially someone who read Genesis symbolically instead of literally.

As much as you would like to deify Paul, he was, in fact, just a man like the rest of us. He happened to be a witness to Christ's revelation on the road to Damascus, but that doesn't make him an eyewitness to a literal Adam and Eve, or even give him the authority to testify to their historicity.

> That's the problem with that type of hermeneutics. Once you start saying well, this is symbolic and this is literal and this is this etc, you make the bible or anyother book say anything you want it to.

No you can't. The symbolic interpretation is a result, not a prescription.

> Obviously there are verses in the bible that cannot be taken literally -- heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. No foot sitting here. But, as a general rule, I take the bible verses to mean what the author at the time was trying to say to the ordinary people he wrote to.

BWS: Some verses describe a flat-earth cosmology. Should we take them literally?

> What would those people understood by what the author was trying to convey. I guess, the whole purpose of language -- even a modernist would have to agree with that.

BWS: What if a later editor misunderstood what an earlier author was trying to convey? Joshua 10 talks about the sun standing still. It quotes a poem from the book of Jashar that would be interpreted figuratively by most except for the fact that the author of Joshua interprets it literally and adds details.

> You keep talking about "personal sin." I guess you are denying that Adam (a actual historical person, I believe) was acting as our Federal Representative (Romans 5).

Adam is not a historical person. "Adam" means "man" and the Yahwist text consistently refers to him with and article, i.e. "the man" and not as a person who happened to be named "Man".

> We did not sin in the manner of Adam, but the guilt of his sin was passed on to all, and through sin, death. Babies do die.

Spiritual death, not physical death.

> We did not participate in the personal sin of Adam,

Yes we do.

> and we don't participate in the personal righteousness of Christ.

But we are saved through faith in him.

> I think that is very liberal and -- oh yes -- tolerant of you to "respect the right of Baptists to believe that homosexuals can or should be ministers."

It's called "autonomy". No matter how strongly I disagree with it, I have no authority to command their congregation around on the issue.

> Are you saying those are morally equivalent positions. Or do you agree that ALL practicing homosexuals should be banned from being a minister? I don't respect the view of anyone that would agree with that idea.

Homosexuality is a sin. I ask you, should all sinners be banned from being a minister? Unrepentant ones, yes. People with hate in their hearts for others SHOULD also be banned from being a minister. Who among us is without sin to fill our pulpits?

At the same time, we're back to the a-word again and our inability as Baptists to tell a congregation whether or not they can ordain Hitler, if they so foolishly choose. Their fruit will expose them as a false teacher.

> I don't contradict myself. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Amen!

> Babies are born depraved and without hope, unless they are regenerated, chosen and justified by a Sovereign God.

BWS: That's unBiblical. The Bible says nothing about the salvation of babies.

> The historical-critical method, actually coming about around the time of the "Enlightment" has done NOTHING for the understanding of the bible, other than giving jobs to many totally lost seminary professors to pretend to be christians and earn a living all the while being unbelievers.

BWS: Do I detect a hint of resentment there?

> Now, I didn't say ALL professors -- probably not more than 90 per cent or so.
By the way, I'm not the one picking or choosing what I want to believe.

BWS: I certainly am not "picking and choosing" (what a tired cliche' that is). You in turn, are choosing to believe what people tell you the Bible says rather than what the Bible actually does and does not say.

> I guess to sum up my beliefs alot better than I can I would say I accept the Westminister Confession, the Canons of Dort and the 1689, I think the year is right, Baptist Confession of Faith.

BWS: I accept no creed but the Bible.

> I believe when the bible says Israel will possess the land forever, I believe Israel will posses the land forever. But that's another whole story.

BWS: No one knows when the hour will come. I could care less if Israel possesses the land, and you should too.

> One other thing. If you do not believe that All have sinned and need a savior, why did Christ die?

BWS: And in turn, have you stopped beating your wife yet??? (Sheesh, are you listening to anything I say?)

> For me, I'll stay a bible-thumping, radical fundamentalists and leave all the "scholars" to try to tear the bible to pieces.

BWS: Jesus explicitly preached against fundamentalists in his day. Although they weren't called by that name, but were known as the "Pharisees".

> One more question: I mentioned the Unitarian-pagan church. You said maybe there is not a branch in the area for some of these liberal, lost people.

BWS: That was a joke poking fun at the idea that anyone would call themselves the "Unitarian-Pagan Church" and not the "Unitarian Universalist" church.

> Are you saying that you see no major difference between the normal Baptist Church and the Unitiaran church?

BWS: No, that's not what I'm saying. Read what I say and you would know that.

> We do seem to disagree on most things. We will not settle those differences here. But it was nice discussing these points with you.

BWS: Amen.

 

BWS:
I just spent an hour responding to your points, then got knocked off AOL and lost everything. So, I'll make it short.

We disagree on most things. I take the Bible and the Apostle Paul as being inspired by God. I would take what Paul says over what any seminary professor says. Like I said, I would bet that 90 per cent of the seminary professors are lost. Not all, mind you. Some are really men of God. But more and more in this modern era of unbelief there is so much intellectual mastrubation going on among the "scholars" it is a waste of time to read or take seriously any of their opinions.

Like I said I spent an hour responding to you and lost everything. I need to get to work, so later.
James2
P.S. There are two types of people in the world. The elect and the others. I guess a person's point of view depends on whether a person is in the kingdom of darkness or the kingdom of light. Whether a person thinks the word of God is foolishness or it is what it says it is. Those things are spiritually discerned (1 cor. 2:14).

 

JAMES2 wrote:
> We disagree on most things. I take the Bible and the Apostle Paul as being inspired by God.

So do I. That's like if I were to say, "We disagree on most things. I'm a Christian." Specify the specific theory of inspiration on which we differ.

> I would take what Paul says over what any seminary professor says.

Even on issues on which Paul has no expertise, like the historicity of Adam and Eve?

> Like I said, I would bet that 90 per cent of the seminary professors are lost. Not all, mind you. Some are really men of God.

I'll let that gem of a statement glisten in all its self-righteous beauty.

> But more and more in this modern era of unbelief there is so much intellectual mastrubation going on among the "scholars" it is a waste of time to read or take seriously any of their opinions.

If you're going to make a shocking statement, you should at least be sure to spell "masturbation" correctly.


> There are two types of people in the world.

Democrats and Republicans?


> The elect and the others.

I wonder which one I belong to?


> I guess a person's point of view depends on whether a person is in the kingdom of darkness or the kingdom of light. Whether a person thinks the word of God is foolishness or it is what it says it is.

There is definitely some foolishness being spewed here, but its not by God, the Bible, or me...

 

BW,
What kind of god is yours? Your god gives us a confusing, mythologically laced Bible that becomes completely subjective to what is and isn’t true. Your god was not omnipotent enough to preserve his revealed word to mankind, even though the scriptures tell us:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The believer’s God did not stop with the completion of the original manuscripts. He has continued to supernaturally preserve His revelation to mankind by the copy process, the canonization process, and the translation processes.

Your god only made the raw materials. He wasn’t omnipotent enough to create all that there is out of nothing. He made the elements and then your real god, nature made all the amazing life forms.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When God created the universe, He made all things mature and fully functional. Scripture reveals that when God created man, he was fully grown, mature and had the appearance of age. And when God created the fruit trees, they offered ripe fruit immediately. God would not have created Adam, Eve and the animals and left them without food to eat while the grain, vegetables and fruit trees went through the growth, maturing and fruit-bearing processes we know today. - Lindsay, D. G. (1999, c1993). The birth of the planet earth : And the age of the universe. Dallas, TX: Christ for the Nations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just as miraculously as Jesus made “aged wine” instantly at the wedding feast, God made an aged universe and planet earth instantly. So why would God deceive anyone about the true age of the earth? To those who think they are wiser than the revelation God gave man, He said:

1 Corinthians 3:19 (NIV)
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

and again:

1 Corinthians 1:19 (NIV)
19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

 

Started a new thread on this subject, for anyone wanting to get back on track. There was some good dialog but it has started to get side tracked. I'll post my response to some of your comments on the "Part 2" thread.

 

Wells wrote:
&gt; BW, What kind of god is yours?

You don't know Him personally? (And they let you moderate a Baptist Board?)

&gt; Your god gives us a confusing, mythologically laced Bible that becomes completely subjective to what is and isn’t true.

I'm not confused and the Bible is not completely subjective.

&gt; Your god was not omnipotent enough to preserve his revealed word to mankind,

Under the same logic, my God was not omnipotent enough to create us all with green skin.

&gt; even though the scriptures tell us: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV) 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)

Which (surprise, surprise) say nothing about a promise to preserve his revealed word to mankind.

&gt; The believer’s God did not stop with the completion of the original manuscripts. He has continued to supernaturally preserve His revelation to mankind by the copy process, the canonization process, and the translation processes.

And WE English-speaking Americans have the fruit of God's preserved manuscripts and everybody else's manuscripts are corrupt, right John? (And you preach to me about not being "subjective".)

&gt; Your god only made the raw materials. He wasn’t omnipotent enough to create all that there is out of nothing.

I'm confused. So you don't think the raw materials were created from nothing?

&gt; He made the elements and then your real god, nature made all the amazing life forms.

Enlighten me, Mr. Wizard. Did "nature" make those life forms from the raw materials or from nothing?

(hilarious quote snipped)

You can't quote scripture to directly support your rants, can you Wells?

&gt; Just as miraculously as Jesus made “aged wine” instantly at the wedding feast, God made an aged universe and planet earth instantly.

I think the Jehovah's Witnesses got to you with their funny translations, John. Nowhere in my Bible do I find the words "appearance of age". It's a shame that you don't trust the Bible for what it says but must add your own understanding to it.

&gt; So why would God deceive anyone about the true age of the earth?

He hasn't. He's made the true age very clear in nature.

&gt; To those who think they are wiser than the revelation God gave man, He said: 1 Corinthians 3:19 (NIV), and again: 1 Corinthians 1:19 (NIV)

Hey, I'm not the one sticking phrases like "appearance of age" in the Bible, John. You would do well to heed your own words.

 

BW It is obvious that noone here is going to change your mind and that we are steadfast in our beliefs. What I truly would like to know is where in Scripture preferably KJ you base your beliefs on Genesis.

As far as I can tell the scripture is silent about the growth of Adam. It does however say that God formed him and put him in the garden that God had planted. Indicating that Adam was formed as a mature image of God.

 

BW Smith:
Seems like you are not reading what has been written. Our disagreements are obvious. The same disagreements that always surface between a believer and a ... aah .. a .. doubter. I'm not sure what adjective to use to describe you.

I said two kinds of people and you come back with republican and democrat. Come now. I was talking about the only two type that matter, which democrat and republican do not. There is the elect and the nonelect. Or the saved and the nonsaved. You wondered what group you fall into. If I were you I would probably wonder about that too.

This discussion is going nowhere. I suggest that you pray to the Holy Spirit to enlighten you so that you can "see" that the word of God is spiritually discerned. (1 cor. 2:14). I don't that say in a critical way or to be mean. Based on your rather critical, and in my opinion totally wrong, views of scripture are you really sure you are a born again Christian?

I have enjoyed our discussion but need to move on to another subject. Have a great thanksgiving holiday.
James2

 

BW Smith:
After reading my previous post to you, I have decided that I may need to clearify a couple of points. Please don't think I am judging the state of your relationship with God -- that is for God to judge, no one else, and I didn't mean it to sound life that. Because you and I disagree about almost everything doesn't mean that you are not part of the elect, or saved, or justified, etc.

It's just that we approach the study of the ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD differently. In my humble opinion, the whole concept of "critical biblical studies" borders on blasphemy. I'm sure God is really concerned that there are fallen, depraved, sinners out there that think they can be "critical" of His Word. I'm sure He gets a really good laugh out of that.
For me, when I study scripture (and I do, regardless of the fact that I may come across as a bible-thumping fundamentalist) I approach the whole process with humble reverence, with prayer to the Holy Spirit to enlighten my mind so I may spirtually discern what the inspired writers want me to understand. By the free grace of God, I thank Him every day that He allows me to study His relevation to man. The Thrice Holy God has communicated, in written form, His ABSOLUTE TRUTH about salvation, the condition of man, the purpose of life, the goal in life, the means to achieve that end, where we came from, what we are doing here, and where we are going, and why. That's enough for me. I really don't have time to be "critical" of the Thrice Holy God.

So, forgive me for my above post. I did not mean to question what group you are in. You said you wondered about that yourself, and I should have left it at that.

We truly do not see things alike, so no use further rehashing things. Like I said, I enjoyed by discussions with you and wish you well.

James2

 

BW,

As usual, your one-liner ad hominem reply. If it were just me who saw your position and responses as unbiblical, that would cause me concern. But the fact that the majority here disagree with you should cause you concern. But I guess your take is that the great theologians and preachers/teachers through the ages have it wrong, and BW is the enlightened one!

 

You mean he's not????????

 

Brian wrote:
&gt; What I truly would like to know is where in Scripture preferably KJ you base your beliefs on Genesis.

1) Evidence from the Torah itself indicates that Moses didn't write it, but that it was written over a long period of time and was finally completed after the exile. 2) Comparing the content of Gen 1-11 with Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian, and Greek mythology indicates a strong correlation, implying that someone borrowed from someone else. 3) The fact that the scientific evidence generally supports the principles laid out in the TOE gives reason to question Gen 1-11 to be sure that we are understanding it properly. 4) There was a certain amount of debate in the early cs.AD about whether Gen 1-11 should be interpreted symbolically or literally, implying that one interpretation had not yet been determined. All-in-all, these point to a symbolic interpretation as the preferred one.

&gt; As far as I can tell the scripture is silent about the growth of Adam. It does however say that God formed him and put him in the garden that God had planted. Indicating that Adam was formed as a mature image of God.

All these statements should not be read as describing historical events, but affirming that God is the Creator, with Adam representing each and every one of us.

 

JAMES2 wrote:
&gt; I said two kinds of people and you come back with republican and democrat. Come now. I was talking about the only two type that matter, which democrat and republican do not.

You don't understand a joke when you see one?

&gt; There is the elect and the nonelect. Or the saved and the nonsaved. You wondered what group you fall into. If I were you I would probably wonder about that too.

Thankfully, there's no wondering to be done. I am saved by faith in Jesus Christ through the grace of God.

&gt; This discussion is going nowhere. I suggest that you pray to the Holy Spirit to enlighten you so that you can "see" that the word of God is spiritually discerned. (1 cor. 2:14).

As do I wish that you see the error in your interpretation.

&gt; I don't that say in a critical way or to be mean. Based on your rather critical, and in my opinion totally wrong, views of scripture are you really sure you are a born again Christian?

Yes I am. We worship God, not the Bible. The Bible is the record of God's revelation on earth, not some new high priest that dwells among us. All believers are in the priesthood of Christ.

 

Wells wrote:
&gt; As usual, your one-liner ad hominem reply.

Would you prefer if I stretched it to two lines?


&gt; If it were just me who saw your position and responses as unbiblical, that would cause me concern. But the fact that the majority here disagree with you should cause you concern.

What the majority thinks does not concern me and neither should it you.