In article <12C9A590-0FC5-07F2-94CB-1F32A2D3E3F6@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard
says...
>
>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>
>>>Erasmus also gave us an
>>>extensive "proof" of free will, but even he wasn't
>>>convinced by his own argument.
>>
>> Not true. Erasmus admitted that he was a specialist in philology, NOT
>> theology. Nevertheless he certainly _was_ convinced by his own
>> argument in the first salvo of the debate between Luther and Erasmus
>> on free will. What passage from the works of Erasmus are you
>> misunderstanding when you make this claim?
>
>True, rather. Erasmus said that even though his arguments
>were not convincing, the Church should still teach personal
>accountability (i.e. cooperation) in order to keep the
>ignorant masses in line.

No, that is not what he said. Again: tell me which passage you are
misinterpreting and I will explain
o you how you _should_ have read it!

For Erasmus really did never say anything like this. The closest he got was to
say that even if Luther's doctrine _was_ true, it should not be broadcast so
loudly, because of the obvious detriment to moral effort. But he NEVER claimed
that the Church should teach anything that is not true, and CERTAINLY NOT "to
keep the ignorant masses in line".

You, Bart, are attributing a supercilious arrogance to Erasmus that he never
had. Perhaps you are projecting -- again!

>
>Bart
>
>
>((( 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. )))


--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)


((( 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. )))

zach wrote:
> lsend...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Sarah Kanary wrote:
> > > "Gary" wrote in message
> >
> > > > Sarah, you remind me of those who deny the holocaust!
> > >
> > > Since thousands of us were actually victims of it, that would be highly
> > > unlikely. What does 1 Cor. 5:11-13 mean to you?
> >
> > Sarah, the JfW's where not victims f the "holocaust" there were merely
> > casualites of war. Again, you refuse the strict understanding of word
> > definition.
>
> Actually, JWs _were_ targeted by the Nazis and put into concentration
> camps, along with other political prisoners and malcontents. Their
> singular devotion to Jehovah had no place in Germany where the state
> was god.