matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote...
> entropy says...

[snip]

> > It helped me a lot in coming to understand a better way of
> > interacting with Usenet's more obnoxious and overbearing types.
>
> So you say. And according to you, I am one of these types. Yet it has
> not helped you in coming to understand a better way of interacting
> with me.

Sure it has! I'm not wasting another minute on you. I'd say that's
a better way of interacting with you. :)

Toodles.

--
Never tire of doing what is right.


((( 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 , Bob Felts says...
>
> >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?
>
> This is obviously a leading question, designed to _frame_
> Steve with the false accusation of "semi-pelagianism".

It's obviously a leading question designed to figure out what you guys
_really_ hold to be true. You know, for a question that has a simple
"yes" or "no" answer, you go to great lengths to avoid answering it.

>
> >[...]
>
> >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 ...
>
> You _say_ you want to do this, but I cannot believe you.

I'll bite my tongue on this one.

> I would be surprised if Steve can believe you either. For your actions in
> this NG are not consistent with this claim. See below.

Ok, I'll wait.

>
> >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.
>
> Yo