In article <093.50.19.05.858954000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...

>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>> In article <091.36.16.05.291484000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>> >
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >So we're saved because of our ability to reason?
>>
>> You who criticized BB for his false dilemma are so quick to come up with
>> this one of your own? NO, I never said that. What I said is that we are
>> not saved if we insist on using our ability to reason _against_ God, which
>> is what he does who clings to heresy, despising the true teaching of the
>> Church.
>
>But that means that:
>a) we know what the true church is,
>b) we know what the true teachings of the church are, and
>c) that we are using our reason against God.

>I don't see how you can get to a), b), or c) without reason. How do we
>know that what we know is true, Matthew?

This, Bob, is just a more complicated version of the same false dilemma. Are you
hoping to hide the dilemma under yet more incomplete choices?

>What if I am a man whose 'reasoner' is broken? Does that mean that I
>cannot be saved?

No. But you miss the point: it is BB's insistence on _deliberate misuse_ of his
'reasoner', using it to teach heresy, that damns him. But a man whose 'reasoner'
is broken is not ipso facto guilty of _misusing_ it, much less deliberately. WHy
are you muddying the waters by pretending you can treat these cases as
equivalent?

[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. )))

In article <078.21.21.05.467945000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>>1. You don't even know the doctrine against which
>>you are arguing. Further, you admit you don't know it, because
>>you need it defined for you.
>
>I don't need it defined for me. I know what it is.

No, you do not. You make this crystal clear when you repeat the old slander that
it is a 'pagan' teaching. But everytime you say this, you display to the whole
NG that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. For the pagans, whether
ancient or modern, could not and did not understand what it meant for Christ to
be _consubstantial_ to the Father. Apparently neither can you.

> I wanted to see if
>you knew. You whole point is impotent.

The _point_ is _impotent_? This malaproprism shows that you do not know