Hi Ruth:

"ruth" wrote in message
news:F850B989-A2C7-B3F6-4F62-0EFB43B43BD7@srcbs.org...
>
> Gary wrote:

> We don't accept grace. We accept the free gift of
Yeshua's death as
> payment for our death penalty. We accept as our Lord,
YHVH our loving
> Father, Yeshua our Savior, and the Holy Spirit our guide.
> This free gift is given because God is a gracious God.

What do you think about the doctrine of the Trinity?

Is Jesus YHWH as well as His Father and the Holy Spirit.

What do you mean, "you don't accept grace?"

Very strange doctrine to me.

Thanks, Gary



((( 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 <147.11.17.05.439824000@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard says...
>
>
>
>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>
>>>How God treats the pots depends upon how they behave.
>>
>> Gary, you had him at his weak point and you MISSED the chance! You
>> missed the chance to point out that the pots prepared for glory were
>> prepared for glory by God, but the posts prepared for destruction were
>> prepared for it BY THEMSELVES.
>
>So Gary says that God treats people depending on how they
>behave,

That sounds tolerably close to what he says, but not exactly. Didn't he say
something about calling according to foreknowledge of good works?

> and yet says that works don't earn salvation.

And that would be quite accurate. Even when we do the most wonderful good works,
we do not _earn_ salvation. The Tradition of the Fathers is quite clear about
this.

> That
>is Contradiction One.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Bart. Far better logicians than you have
insisted on _exactly_ this position, and knew there was no contradiction here.
If you really believe you are such a superior logician, greater even than Sts.
John of Damascus and Maximus the Confessor (who held exactly this position),
then show us using symbolic logic exactly where the logical contradiction lies.

> If Gary agrees with Matthew that
>"the pots prepared for glory were prepared for glory by God"
>and yet wants to maintain that God doesn't "force" anyone,
>then we'll have Contradiction Two.

No, here too, you have no contradiction, and for the same reason. You are making
assumptions about causality that are invalid. But since you hide behind these
vague, unsubstantiated claims of 'contradiction', you are hiding your
un-scriptural assumptions about causality, too.


--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.