Horseshoe pitching site in St. Clair, Michigan

Central spot for pitching in the region of Brighton, Michigan.

Central spot for pitching in the State.

peter.gibbs@charter.net wrote:

> The concept of heresy is essentially political (not theological)
> because it is all about human authority.

No it isn't. It's about whether doctrine is true or false.
Scripture is full of admonitions to adhere to the pure
teaching of the Apostles. The concept of heresy is exactly
about failing to do that. If you secularize Christianity,
then it's no longer Christianity.


> Likewise, to assert on the basis of the Christian paradigm
> that the Buddhist worldview is wrong is like saying that the English
> language can disprove the French language.

Not hardly. Doctrines consist of statements which are either
true or false. A language isn't true or false. This isn't
a parallel at all.

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 , lsenders@hotmail.com
says...
>
>
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>
>> > You
>> >confuse the Greek notion of determinism or "system" with the
>biblical
>> >Christian idea of God's control of all things.
>>
>> You miss the point, Loren. It is you, with your slavery to Calvinism,
>who have
>> confused the Greek notion of determinism with the CHristian idea of
>God's
>> providential control. That is why you reduce us to automota.
>>
>I would suggest the take another look at the fathers.

I have, and that is how I know how wrong you are, Loren!

> This was their
>failure as well.

It was no _failure_. You simply misunderstood what they were doing.

> Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr,
>Athenagoras, Irenaeus, even Tertulian, the founder of Latin
>Chrisitanity, all failed at exactly the same point that you do,
>Matthew.

It was no 'failure', and no, it was not the same as what I am talking about. You
are simply returning like a dog to its vomit, to your old bad habit of putting
square pegs in round holes.

> And grant you, like these just mentioned, you hold to a
>committment to the Rule of Faith and you readily maintain the truth
>against heresy, yet like these men you seem to think of a general
>theism maintained by the same presuppositions of men who were not
>Christian and of Christianity as adding something to this general
>theism. And like Tertulian, great strides have been made in
>Trinitarian discussion, yet there remains to some extent a bounding to
>the principle of cosmological Logos theology.

What _are_ you talking about? You sound like you are hiding your two-cent ideas
behind 64-dollar words.

>> > You identify more with
>> >the non-Christian idea o