In article <090.46.18.05.248541000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...

[snip]

>> Any heresy, when it grows up, leads to damnation.
>
>Then we have no hope, do we?

No, this does not follow, because we do not _have_ to let it grow up! That is
the whole point. But someone who denies the Trinity so vigorously, proving
himself impervious to all reason has done exactly this. And unless he repents,
he is lost. The same applies to anyone fooled into believing him. That is why it
is so tragic that denial of the Trinity is so popular in modern day society --
and the overwhelming majority of 'defences' of the Trinity so weak and
unconvincing.

[snip]


--
---------------------------
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. )))

Stephen M. Adams wrote:

[...]


>
> Once again, I challenge you to show me where I have said that one can
> attain righteousness without the gospel. Better yet, show me where I
> have said that one can attain righteosness without grace! Or that
> the righteousness is completely self-willed.

Is this righteousness partially self-willed?

[...]

BTW, Steve, part of the problem with these challenges is that what you
say, and what you imply by what you say, are often at odds with one
another (at least, in the estimation of some who read your words). The
same is true of what I write. That's why we enter into these (often
heated) discussions -- to see whether:

1) we really understood what you said,
2) you really understood what you said,
3) we correctly connected the dots between what you said and what
Scripture says, and
4) you correctly connected the dots between what you said and what
Scripture says, and ...

Having read what you wrote in the quoted section above, I think there's
a problem connecting an implication of what you said with what I think
Scripture says. Hence my question, which is diagnostic in intent.

As an example of how difficult this all is, in another thread I asked
the question, "So why do all men everywhere, without fail, choose not to
follow [the] Law?"

Matthew responded with:

> Ah, here is where you reveal another theological bias, or rather, a
> philosophical bias, which happens to _also_ be rooted in Scholasticism,
> namely, empiricism. You seem to believe that if all men fail, then they
> fail by nature. But this IS an empiricist as