Directory maintained by the Wisconsin Public Library Department.

In article <151.00.15.05.291750000@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard says...
>
>
>
>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Among the many things you
>>>don't know is my philosophical position.
>>
>> He may not know it exactly, but having been a lost soul wandering in
>> predestinarianist darkness for so long, he knows it in general terms.
>> You cannot maintain your predestinarian position without sharing
>> certain philosophical errors with Calvinists.
>
>1. I am not a "predestinarianist".

Yes you are, since you accept Luther's dogma as taught in "On the Bondage of the
Will", the _classic_ statement of predestinarianism.

>
>2. So I guess this is another classic Matthew double standard.

Then you guess wrong.

>It's OK for Gary to "read my mind" by infering things about
>my position, but it's not OK for me to "read your mind" by
>citing what you say about yourself.

This is nothing but a straw-man argument. For it is not what I do at all.

>
>Learn to read and think.

I know how. That is how I know you are a predestinarianist. That is how I know
you are yourself guilty of the same illogic you so freely accuse others of.


--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, 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. )))

alienbill wrote:
> I've never quite understood where exactly Jesus stood, or would have
us
> stand, regarding the older Law of Moses the Jews were to follow. On
the
> one hand he was accused of breaking the Sabbath and that sort of
thing,
> but he also said every word of the law should be kept. Where are we
to
> draw the line and say this is no longer necessary, but this must
remain?
>
> It seems that question plagued Paul as he ministered to the non-Jews.
He
> stresses following what we believe as regards keeping the sabbath,
> eating "unclean"animals, & that, yet also says we should be careful
not
> to cause anyone else to turn away because of our "freedom in Christ."
>
> How can we reconcile that freedom with the responsibility not to
offend
> another believer?

I don't see any problem between two Christians. Two Christians who are
aware that they disagree can discuss their differences, but avoid
offending one another. A problem could arise when one of the
Christians intentionally flouts his differences and challenges other
Christians to disagree with him. But, then all parties realize that
the resulting struggle is understood to be a test of the two opinions,
and both parties should str