wrf3@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) writes:
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>> wrf3@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) writes:
>> >Stephen M. Adams wrote:

>> >> I disagree. I didn't single-source my information and understanding.
>> >> Rather, I looked to what the church taught from the earliest times. The
>> >> Scriptures clearly say that the *Church* is the pillar and ground of
>> >> the truth.
>> >
>> >So? You still had to independently evaluate the evidence -- you had to
>> >reach the decision that one particular branch of Christendom was
>> >presenting the truth. In the end it came down to "I, Steve Adams, based
>> >upon the evidence I've examined, have come to this particular
>> >conclusion."
>>
>> I think you have imssed the point - my conclusions in this matter have
>> exactly zero bearing on the truth of the Orthodox position.
>
>Your conclusions are the only thing which lead you to claiming that the
>Orthodox position is true.

>Other people have evaluated the evidence and diagree with your
>conclusions. You can say they are wrong -- they will say you are wrong.
>The only position which you can claim without controversy is "In my
>evaluation of the evidence, I believe that the Orthodox position is
>correct."

You're missing the point. The truth or faslseness of Orthodoxy does not
hinge on my opinion. Either it's True or False. It's True. Wheter you
agree or not changes things not one whit. The Truth is the truth even
if you reject it.


>> Fundamentally, the Scriptures do not teach (and in fact, contradict)
>> your position.
>
>Really?
>a) What is my position? and
>b) What passages contradict it?

Gary has dealt with this - the entire structure of Calvinism is completely
unbiblical. That thread is moving along nicely.

>> As I noted before, you have taken the error that was the source many (if
>> not most) of the ancient heresies and dogmatized it, and refuse to be
>> corrected by the 200 year old witness of the Church.
>
>My "error", if you want to call it that, is that doctrine must be
>supported by the Scriptures. However, every group: Orthodox, RCC,
>Protestant, nutcases, & etc... makes that claim. Either someone can
>uncritically accept one position over another, or critically examine the
>evidence. At that point, one can either rely on:
>1) the claims of one group over another,
>2) their innate ability to evaluate data and come to conclusions, or
>3) the Holy Spirit to lead them and correct them when they are wrong.
>
>1 is a cop-out. 2 is pride. 3 is the only viable choice that I see.

And when they