In article <131.16.15.05.483098000@srcbs.org>, lsenders@hotmail.com says...
>

[snip]

>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.

Ah, yes, the old ace-in-the hole! When all else fails, assign homework!

[snip]

>That was never my point. My point was the validity of a literal
>interpretation of Genesis and not an allegorical one.

But there IS no validity to it; not in the Creation accounts. That is why the
orders of the two Creation accounts do not agree.

> This ties
>directly to the rudamentary, elemental, foundational, presuppositional
>basis for one's interpretation of the nature of man.

And your "rudamentary[sic], elemental, foundation, psrsuppositional bases" for
this are quite wrong. Largely, but not entirely, because you insist on literal
interpretation in the wrong place.

> All theology
>flows from this.

No, all theology flows from the Trinity, which you _also_ can only
misunderstand, because you deny the key premises of apophatic theology AND
accept the unaccaptable, the Filioque.

> 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.

Well, it does not surprise _me_ that it is beyond you. But the problem is your
'presuppositions', not Steve's statement.

>It is the providential arrangement of the canon which rightly places
>Genesis as the first book of the bible.

But you reject that providential arrangement, since you reject the
deuterocanonical books.

>Obviously the inspired John
>understood its import in the writing of his prologue in his gospel.
>Everything hinges upon it.

On it, yes. But NOT on interpreting literally what the author himself tells us
should not be intepreted too literally.

>>
>> 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.

And that is yet another clue that you missed; a clue that you should NOT take it
literally everywhere. Long before modern geology developed, wise commentators on
Scripture were already treating the ages of men as