All articles

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

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

>> 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 don't particularly care what Steele & Thomas say. The Scriptures
refute you and them with their most plain and simple reading. When
someone says "But it doesn't mean that" and procceds to supply entire
volumes to explain away a clear, simple verse, you should be EXTREMELY
skeptical.

>> 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.

Nothing hinges on a literal reading of the Genesis record. And by the
way, which one? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? There are two different creation
stories, with a different order of events.

>> 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.

Fine. Take John 6 literally, and THEN I'll listen to you about Genesis.

>> 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.

In other words, you wasted your money, since you didn't really learn
anything. :-(

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

((( 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. )))