The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Romans 5:12

J Edwards opines Speratus can others use the terms propagates and species and NOT be speaking about evolution? I am in no way confusing the terms, … PLEASE make an argument from Scripture????????

For instance, in Genesis 1 it states,

Quote:
11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.

21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.
Now every creation of God that was created in the verses above brought forth other creatures in the order of nature after their own kind. However, when we get to the creation of man he was not made after his own kind was he? In Gen 1:26 and 27 we read,

Quote:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Mankind was a special creation unlike the beasts of the field. He was so special that “Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen 2:7). Traducianism by definition looks at man as it does the beasts of the field, producing after its kind, but Scripture once again disagrees! Every human soul is a special creative act of the immanent God!

If man was originally created in the image of God (see above) and then lost that image “in totality” (as Lutheran theology states) then mankind is not longer mankind. He is not longer distinct from any other creature in the field. In addition, since Christ was created in this very image (the Second man Adam) He could only redeem them whom He was like and thus in Lutheranism there is no redeemer of God’s elect! Again and again Lutheranism reveals it has no consistent Christology!

As Berkhof comments the Lutheran differs materially from the Reformed view as it does not sufficiently recognize the essential nature of man as distinct from that of the angels on the one hand, and from that of animals on the other hand. In the possession of this image men are like the angels, who also possess it; and in comparison with what the two have in common, their difference is of little importance. Man lost the image of God entirely through sin, and what now distinguishes him from the animals has very little religious or theological significance. The great difference between Reformed theology and Lutheranism in the image of God is that Lutherans believe this image is entirely lost. In view of this it is also natural that the Lutherans should adopt Traducianism, and thus teach that the soul of man originates like that of an animal, that is, by procreation.

The Reformed view of the image of God IMO is much more accurate then the Lutheran view. This is known as the Broader and Narrower View. The dominant view (however, not the only view) of Reformed and Presbyterian churches is that the image of God may be spoken of in broader and narrower senses (Charles Hodge notes that Reformed theologians also use the terminology "essential" and "accidental" for the two senses of the divine image (Systematic Theology, vol. 1). The imago dei in the narrower sense, consisting of knowledge, righteousness and true holiness, was wholly lost at the fall, but the imago dei in the wider sense, which includes man’s "intellectual power, natural affections and moral freedom," was retained (Berkhof). Thus, Henrici a Diest (Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics) writes,

Quote:
The image of God (which cannot be lost) was the spiritual, immortal, rational substance of the soul, with the powers of knowing and freely willing: the divine image, which can be lost, lay for knowledge in wisdom, for the will and its effects in true righteousness and holiness.
Since, you are into Lutheranism you should note that R. C. H. Lenski (a Lutheran) held to this view as well. Lenski distinguishes between the "general" and the "special" image but their contents are the same as the broader/narrower distinction (The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James, p. 611).

This merely reveals the continued inconsistency in Lutheran doctrine and their theologians. I have proved Scripturally that your Small Catechism (in this area) is impossible for the Lutheran to embrace as true, if they hold to Traducianism. You need to disprove ALL my arguments Speratus before we can accept your confessions. PLEASE support your claim Scripturally.

To save time, what don't you agree with in my Formula of Concord citations? Because they are NOT scripturally bounded. You quote these before you quote and “explain” Scripture. I had asked in the previous post for you to support your views scripturally, however you DID NOT present one Scripture, but you found room and time for the Small Catechism. You are seeing Scripture, (when you get to it that is), ONLY through the eyes of the FOC, Small Cathechism, etc. which is a false hermeneutic. As much as I respect the history and the truth of the WCF and other such documents the Scriptures are still above them for they are the truth …without question.

To be more specific the FOC speaks of God using secondary means in the creation of the soul and thus …. False. You or it have yet to “prove” this scripturally … Quoting the confession is not evidence of its veracity or integrity and if it is not supported in, with, under, and by the Scripture it is no different than reading textbook on American History .