adamst@no.spam wrote:

> If you claim to trust the Scriptures, then you must put your trust
> in those who wrote them much later, those who preserved and copied
> those writings, and those who compiled the canon.

No, one puts one's trust in the Holy Spirit, who actively
guides and supports His church. The Scriptures are His
unique gift to the church.

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. )))

In article <116.36.21.05.138723000@srcbs.org>, lsenders@hotmail.com says...

>Gary McNees wrote:
>
>> The Calvinists see no error, no harm, no problem, in
>> teaching that God actually hates (savingly) most of His creatures.
>
>This is the exact same line of argumentation of those who wish to see
>an end to capital punishment. You both share in the very same
>presuppositional base.
>
>The truth of the matter is, capital punishment establishes a higher,
>not a lower, view of man. Man is so dignified, so worthy, that to
>murder a man is equally worthy of the murder to forfeit his own life.
>It is the great high value of man that necessitates captial punishment.

>Contrary the biblical position, man cannot be reformed.

Are you trying to speak like a lawyer, using the accusative absolute?
You came out with somthing that contradicts your own beliefs!

More important, if YOU were right, Christ would not have said to the
woman taken in adultery, "Go and sin no more (Jo 8:11)". Nor could He
have said this to the cured paralytic (Jo 5:14). Yet He did.

So no, the Biblical position is that man CAN be reformed. And you are
despising the words of Christ Himself to claim otherwise.

>In fact, he is already dead. "Y lived X number of years and he
>died." He died spiritually as well and his future, like that of the
>murderer (in a righteous society) is determined. When man fell, he
>inherited the second death.

No! The second death is at the end of time.

>"All men died." God was not obligated to save any. Again, as I have
>noted to Matthew elsewhere tonight, the problem is that you advance
>your argument primarily from the human vantage without recognizing
>what it does in direct ratio to the redemptive off of God.

"Direct ratio to the redemptive"? Such pretentious and nonsensical
language! Worse yet, you follow it immediately with the hilarious
solecism "off of God".

"Redemptive off of God"? What was _that_ supposed to mean? How _do_
you come up with such turgid prose? Do you use it to hide your faulty
logic even from yourself?

[snip]

[1 Cor 1:20+