Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> wrf3@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) writes:
> >I notice you didn't answers "lsenders" questions.
>
> There is no way to answer a straw-man argument directly. Not without
> conceding something that we will not concede (because it is not
true).
> Namely, that we are 'arminian' which we are categorically not.
>
> Since Loren has created an either/or false dilemma, there is no way
> to answer his question directly. When he's willing to admit that
> there is a 3rd way, then we can have a fruitful discussion.
>

It is not a "straw-man" whether you are of the Pelagian form known as
Arminainism or some other form. And dispite your denial, it is truly
an either/or dilemma.

Dispute the 5 points made in regards to their being antithetical in
nature. The only "3rd" way is to produce yet another variant of
semi-Pelagianism. That is all. Unless you can do better than all the
books and all the apologetical lectures I have read or listened to, I
will not accept a "3rd way." You must provide and prove it. Is that
not the reasoning behind this forum?

((( 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. )))

Gary McNees wrote:

> Pleeeese! James says outright:
>
> James 2:21, 25, 25
>
> Surely you can do better, Loren.
>
Is James teaching the doctrine of salvation from the same perspective
that Paul does in Romans? No. James is teaching the issue illustrated
by Christ when He declared, "Your sins are forgiven." However, men do
not have the ability to draw conclusions about the hearts of men
except, "Take up your bed and walk," i.e. external evidences. James is
merely teaching that there is an external expection if in fact, as one
might claim, there had been an inward confession.

Yet it still remains true, the internal always preceeds the external.
"Surely you can do better than this?"

((( 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. )))

Okay, just for the record.

Those two "covering cherubs" on the Ark were actually two angels connected
with Mount Zion. They were Michael the Archangel and his wife. This angel
later became Satan.

These two "covering cherubs" are depicted on the curtains of the temple
alternating between a cherub and a palm tree, the palm-tree representing the
lesser and more feminine (if you will) angel. Their close relationship is
sometimes reflected as that of a husband and wife. Thus Michael, who later
became Jesus was married at one time to S