No such action

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

The action specified by the URL is not recognized by the wiki

Return to Main Page.

>
>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 for the geological evidences, that would be construed as a joke if
it weren't so serious in the nature of the case. I've been to the
history museum in Chicage, a major museum boasting of Sue, the TRex.
There it has an exhibit of geological strata and the date of each.
When asked how we are able to conclude the date of each strata, I was
informed by a puzzeled guide, "Why, by what we find in each strata."
Later we led to an exhibit of various "extinct" animals in fossils and
our pretty little guide proceeded to explain to us how old they were.
Again I asked, politely, how we are able to determine this. Again the
befuddled little smile puckered her face as she retorted, "Because of
the strata in which they were discovered!

Do I need to explain the hypocrisy?
>
>
> >If you're going to express a position, why do you, like
> >Matthew, never defend it or actually make a clear statement as to
what
> >you actually do believe.
>
> What a load of bologna. You've seen my website - specifically the
> book. You could EASILY go to my parish website and see REAMS of
> material there. You've studiosuly avoided learning anything aobut
> Orthodoxy from what I can see.
>
I guess then, lets see, . . . . . that $157,87 I spent on books last
year specifically seeking to understand the OC faith must not count for
anything. And before you ask, yes, I read and even underlined each and
everyone. I have made an attempt. But that said, though I have a much
better understanding of the OC, now quite simply, its all a mystery to
me. I had an easier time sifting through Hinduism that OCism. Paul's
gospel was not nearly so mysterious as yours.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))