goddardbe@netscape.net wrote...
>
> peter.gibbs@charter.net wrote:
>
> > You guys crack me up with your insistence on "right understanding",
> > "correct doctrine", and, for Christ's sake, proper spelling?!
>
> > b) it really isn't all that important, as neither right understanding,
> > correct doctrine, nor proper spelling will save you (except perhaps in
> > a spelling bee.)
>
> What cracks me up is illogical pontificators who 1. insist on their
> own doctrine and yet say doctrine is not important and 2. act as
> if doctrine was different from the faith.
>
> Faith comes by hearing the Word, and people won't hear the Word
> if it isn't preached. And if your doctrine isn't correct, then
> you're not preaching the Word. Doctrine IS the vehicle by which
> we hear about God and strengthen our faith.
>
> > Only by the grace of God, which is a free gift, are we saved.
>
> This is true. It's also a bit of doctrine.

And as a bit of doctrine, the big difference between it and what
'today' is supposed to mean is that it's one we can all agree on.

But go back to arguing about where a comma is supposed to be inserted
when translating from a source language that doesn't even have them.

--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1

((( 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. )))

In article ,
lsenders@hotmail.com says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:


>> >http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_reformed.aspx

>> And I have referred him to a few articles on this site
>> before. The Florovsky article is the best. But Loren has
>> since never showed any understanding of the ideas
>> expressed there, so I reached the conclusion that either
>> he never read them, or he read them with a completely
>> closed mind.

>
>The point was, where are the "traditions" listed.

And my point was, you are asking the wrong question. You
still are.

If you cannot
>provide for me a printed detailing of what the "traditions" are that
>supercede scripture, then it is pie in the sky.

No, that does not follow. This is just another or yoru more
childish red herrings.

> But you can't just a the RCC can't. This is why your
>version, the RC version is no different than the version
>which Christ condemned in the gospels.

Nonsense. This is pure slander.

> It is the traditions of men which stand over the
>interpretation of scripture.

That does not follow. This is just another of your empty slogans.
<