Directory for the visual and performing arts and humanities in Indiana, focusing on dance, writing, theatre, music and the visual arts.

Serves the citizens of Indiana by funding, encouraging, promoting and expanding all the arts.

Humanities grants, events, and resources, including essays on history and culture. Includes staff directory, sections for teachers and business.

Part of a national network of Young Audiences' chapters promoting participation in the arts by providing children with direct experiences with the highest-quality professional artists.

>
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> lsenders@hotmail.com writes:

>
> Gary and Matthew have been dealing with them. But, to point one
thing
> out, so as to eliminate your complaint, one point is so simple to
refute
> that even Calvin never taught it: Limited Atonement.
>
> According to the Scriptures:
>
> and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours
> only, but also for those of the whole world. [ 1 John 2:2 ]
>
> So much for the 'L' point, which means we can safely ignore any
system
> that depends on it.
>
> I suspect you'll treat this like you do James, and insist that it
means
> exactly the opposite of what the text says. For if you are a
"5-point
> Calvinist" this verse contradicts one of the base points of your
system.
>
I'm pretty much debated out today so I will say only this. Please find
a copy of "The 5 Points of Calvinism" coauthored by David Steele and
Curtis Thomas. Also, if you have access to Shedd's "Dogmatic Theology"
I would suggest you take a look at his explaination of the doctrine.
BTW, I quoted from each of these I believe in my rebuttal to Gary
today. Exact same point.
>
> >I'm going to start a heresy sub thread dealing specifically with the
> >Genesis record. You say you do not believe in a literal 6 day
> >creation. Fine. I asked you to present some scientific observation
> >which would support such a position. You've presented nothing, in
> >fact, you've ignored the point all together.
>
> This is not the place for an evolution vs. creation debate.
>
That was never my point. My point was the validity of a literal
interpretation of Genesis and not an allegorical one. This ties
directly to the rudamentary, elemental, foundational, presuppositional
basis for one's interpretation of the nature of man. All theology
flows from this. Therefore it is beyond me how you can then write....
>
> I am not
> a Darwinist. But I'm not a creationist, either. One or the other
> (or some other option) wouldn't matter one whit to my theolgy.
>
It is the providential arrangement of the canon which rightly places
Genesis as the first book of the bible. Obviously the inspired John
understood its import in the writing of his prologue in his gospel.
Everything hinges upon it.
>
> Before I can give you evidence, tell me if you believe in a young or
> old earth. I believe in an old earth. And I think the geological
> and physical record supports that position.
>
Young earth, of course. If we are to take the bible literally and
calculate the ages of men, it could be interpreted no other way.

As f