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 <131.16.15.05.483098000@srcbs.org>, lsenders@hotmail.com says...
>

[snip]

>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.

Ah, yes, the old ace-in-the hole! When all else fails, assign homework!

[snip]

>That was never my point. My point was the validity of a literal
>interpretation of Genesis and not an allegorical one.

But there IS no validity to it; not in the Creation accounts. That is why the
orders of the two Creation accounts do not agree.

> This ties
>directly to the rudamentary, elemental, foundational, presuppositional
>basis for one's interpretation of the nature of man.

And your "rudamentary[sic], elemental, foundation, psrsuppositional bases" for
this are quite wrong. Largely, but not entirely, because you insist on literal
interpretation in the wrong place.

> All theology
>flows from this.

No, all theology flows from the Trinity, which you _also_ can only
misunderstand, because you deny the key premises of apophatic theology A