wrf3@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) writes:
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>>
>> Once again, I challenge you to show me where I have said that one can
>> attain righteousness without the gospel. Better yet, show me where I
>> have said that one can attain righteosness without grace! Or that
>> the righteousness is completely self-willed.
>
>Is this righteousness partially self-willed?

If by this do you meant that it is uncaused except by us, no. Any
act we do is by the power of God's grace. The difference is that
you beleive grace 'forces' or 'requires' action, whereas we say that
is 'enables' action.

>BTW, Steve, part of the problem with these challenges is that what you
>say, and what you imply by what you say, are often at odds with one
>another (at least, in the estimation of some who read your words). The
>same is true of what I write. That's why we enter into these (often
>heated) discussions -- to see whether:
>
>1) we really understood what you said,
>2) you really understood what you said,
>3) we correctly connected the dots between what you said and what
>Scripture says, and
>4) you correctly connected the dots between what you said and what
>Scripture says, and ...
>
>Having read what you wrote in the quoted section above, I think there's
>a problem connecting an implication of what you said with what I think
>Scripture says. Hence my question, which is diagnostic in intent.

And yet, no matter how often a question is answered, no matter how
often sufficient proof is argued to support my position or refute
yours, you (plural) continue to repeate the same things. Over and
over again.

I'll leave the question about Matthew's words for Matthew

-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. )))

matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote...
>
>
> In article <178.49.21.05.056394000@srcbs.org>, entropy says...
> >
> >matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >> >(People argue about it, therefore it's a priori not trivial? Your
> >> >> >logic is often, albeit not always, sharper than that.)
>
> >> >> But that was NOT my logic! If you cannot understand the difference
> >> >> between my logic and _this_ straw man of yours, how can I explain to
> >> >> you how the issue of the comma affects our salvation?
>
> >> >You can't explain it anyway, and you know it! :)
>
> >> No,