Chart of statistics on religion in Delaware.

Offer daily online Bible studies, message boards, and chat room.

gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:


>> And I note that, e.g., Satan holds to correct doctrine (in
> the
>> sense Gary means it.)
>>
>> Bart
>
> No he does not.
>
> He does not believe that Christ died for his sins.

He believes that Christ died for _our_ sins. So he
does, in fact, know correct doctrine.

Bart


((( 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. )))

Matthew Johnson wrote:

> In article <095.46.05.05.634423000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
> >
[...]

>
> Bob made one good observation about this, I will make another. If you want
> us to stop the "JW-bashing", you MUST stop exhibiting the stereotypical JW
> faults so brazenly! Stop the dishonest methods of debate and exegesis!
>

We have to behave, regardless of what our opponents do.

((( 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. )))

Matthew Johnson wrote:

> In article <139.59.11.05.384631000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >One way out of this conundrum, is that man is responsible -- not because
> >man is free (which the Scriptures do not teach) -- but by divine fiat.
>
> The problem is, of course, that that is a "way out" of one conundrum, only to
> fall into a much WORSE problem! But Calvinists, of course, simply flatly deny
> that they have created a worse problem.

And that worse problem is... ?

>
> The problem is that as St. Augustine pointed out with numerous Scripture
> references and sound argument based on them, the Scriptures themselves
> deny this possiblity: it is NOT by 'divine fiat" that we are responsible.
> It is because we could have not sinned, but we sinned instead.

The alternative, that we are responsible because we are free, is not an
option supported by Scripture.

((( 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. )))

Matthew Wrote:

But you are applying an understanding of 'nature' that is itself much
later than the time period when Reveleation was written. In that
period, no one would _make_ your distinction between "rising because of
it's nature" and "rise by it's own power". From their point of view,
the two are if not the same, at least indistinguishable.

I wrote:

Had the witers meant what you say they meant about "ascending" under
one's own volition and power they could have used another word for
"ascends" when concerning sm