gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:


> First, we trust, (have faith, believe) AFTER WE HAVE
> heard the word of truth, the Gospel.
>
> And next, AFTER we have believed this Gospel, we are
> subsequently sealed with the Holy Spirit.
>
> Salvation was initiated by God in sending His Son because
> HE LOVED THE WORLD. (the cosmos.)

Yeah, we know your picture. You imagine that man is sitting
in a bar minding his own business, and then God walks in
and sits with him. God outlines a lucrative proposal, which
the man considers and then accepts. Since he accepts, he
benefits from the advantages of the proposal.

You then assert that (and this is the sticking point) since
God "started it", man did nothing.

But the plain fact is, that, unless you grant that God
manipulated man's will, man made a decision to obey the
First Commandment and thereby kept "his part" of the bargain.
This is salvation by works and that's where your doctrine
of "free will" leads.

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. )))

>At least you should
>give credit to your resources.

why? so you can distract attention off the Bible and find fault with
the resources? No thanks. I've learned my lesson when dealing with
trinitarians to not give them diversions- not give them alternate
targets. Where certain quotes come from is not important unless one
relies on the credentials of the resource. What I quote can be proven
or disproven by the Bible which is where the discussion should stay
anyway.

((( 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 <125.10.12.05.617220000@srcbs.org>, lsenders@hotmail.com
says...
>
> >He is left with Pseudo-Dionysius who brought the Plotinian motif
into
> >direct connection with the Christian principle via synthetic theism.
>
> This, Loren, is just another example of how you descend into
ignorance
> when you put on the pretence of being scholarly. And what a hollow
> pretence it is! "Plotinian motif"? Give me a break!
>
I use to give you credit. In dismissing this analysis, I can only
conclude you simply don't understand all that is involved
presuppositionally.
>
> >He does so by means of his idea of negative theology (Matthew's
> >version in particular evidences this paradigm).
>
> No, that is NOT what he does with negative theology.
>
Well, technically, yes. However, in practice, no.
>
> >If the Christian prinic