County clerk's office. Genealogy records.

Area history and photos, events, organizations, and businesses.

Data from the East Central Michigan Planning & Development Regional Planning agency for member county Arenac County, Michigan.

Arenac county cemetery records available for download in text file format.

Matthew Johnson wrote:

> In article <116.51.13.05.933308000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
> >Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <115.51.06.05.622976000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >> Since you have not free will, I think that this is the consequence.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Romans 7 explains this nicely.
> >>
> >> It does? Then why does the _interpretation_ of Rom 7 differ so sharply
> >> between you, myself, and Gary?
>
> >If you're going to play the numbers game then I could add a number of
> >people to "my" side.
>
> I am NOT "playing the numbers game". You misinterpret my words as badly as
> you do the words of Scripture.
>

That's why I said "if". You can often be quite esoteric; I was just
trying to cover one possible base, because it wasn't clear why you
brought this objection up.

> >But truth does not lie in numbers.
>
> Now this is something truly rare; a point on which you and I can agree;)
>
> > The answer is that the reformers were right; you and Gary are wrong.
>
> No, that is not the answer.

Hier stehe ich...

> Remember that Christ promised He would always be with His Church, and even
> that He would always work wonders through that Church (Mk 16:17-18). And
> who does God give the Holy Fire to on Easter? Only to the Orthodox. That
> IS a sign that we are the true Church, where the true interpretation of
> Scripture is preserved. And we do NOT agree with your interptation of
> Romans.
>

1) So-called "Holy Fire" isn't in the list in Mk.
2) Since when did miracles show correct adherence to doctrine? Do you
happen to agree with the Charismatics, or do you think that their
"miracles" are fake?

> But for those not convinced by wonders, there is still reason and
> philology. And these too, support our conclusion, not yours. For your
> interpretation of Romans is stuck in the past, when 16th century
> interpreters had just begun to learn Greek, and were still stuck in the
> long, dark shadow of scholasticism.
>

Can you be more specific? Something that we can discuss between us?

> That is why your interpretation of Romans is blighted by ignorance of how Paul
> viewed the nature of Man, before and after Baptism.
>

What kind of Baptism, Matthew?

((( 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. )))

Sorry for mistake.

wrote in message
news:173.53.11.05.3