In article <085.59.16.05.407678000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>>Obviously you have become
>>frustrated by your inability to defend your own position
>
>I have defended my position and proven it. People can look at the
>various posts and decide for themselves.

And when they _do_ look at the posts, they see you have NOT proven it. Far from
it.

What they see is that you list long strings of irrelevant citations, citations
that do not support you AT ALL, and then call that 'proof'. What they see is
that you sink to wild accustion of 'apostasy' instead of honest refutations.


--
---------------------------
Subudcat 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. )))

In post: <177.29.16.05.237543000@srcbs.org>, Eric asked,


>>k...@ccountry.net wrote:
>>Do you see this woman?
>>

>What kind of response were you expecting to this question?
>After all, it's clear at least that you are capable of reflection and
>discernment, and you have been here for some time. So what
>good purpose is there to your dialogue? Personally I prefer to
>be very clear in what i say, and note that I've essentially asked
>this same question very recently (in a different context) in this
>forum and have received no return...
>

I don't think I was expecting a particular answer; however, I was
hoping for a cogent response beyond the doctrinal reply by rote
so common to these discussions.

As to purpose, it is my belief that Scriptures solicit discussion.
And that is their good purpose, to present God afresh for every
generation while each generation adds its bit of understanding
toward a common belief, instilling faith drop by drop.

What was the question you asked earlier?

2

((( 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. )))

wrote in message
news:84CDB5DF-2633-A69A-CFF6-E54296492D4F@srcbs.org...
> Gary wrote:
> >
> > I would have expected you to either claim the Paul was in error and that
> > Luther did not so teach, or to at least address the point, and tell us
that
> > Luther was incorrect on this particular point.
> >
> Obviously, Luther was not infallible. In fact, there were many
> theological points which IMHO, he never really addressed and just
> defaulted to his original RC traditions. Luther got the ball rolling.