peter.gibbs@charter.net wrote:


> Bart Goddard wrote:
>> "Doctrine" means "teaching". If we're teaching correctly, then
>> we are preaching the Word. And it is the preaching of the Word
>> which creates faith in the hearer. In this sense it is correct
>> to say "doctrine and theology save". It is the main vehicle
>> by which the Word is spread.
>>
>
> According to Paul (Eph 2:8-9),
> "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your
> own doing; it is the gift of God- not the result of works, so that no
> one may boast."
>
> Notice that there is nothing here about faith being dependent upon
> teaching, studying, or holding correct opinions.

So many fallacies in one sentence. I'm actually impressed.

1. If the verse is silent about faith being dependent
upon teaching, then you can't conclude either that faith
is or is not dependent upon teaching.

2. There is, in fact, a verse which contradictions
you. Rom. 10:17 says faith comes by hearing.

3. It's a false alternative to separate the action of
the Word from it's preaching. We don't have to choose
between them; in fact, we can't.


> One need not be indoctrinated in order to be saved.

Using the word "indoctrinated" is just a connotative
ploy. It sounds nastier than "taught". But the verses
are clear that faith comes by hearing, and that the
Holy Spirit has chosen to grow His Church by the
spreading of the Word.


> As Paul says, the salvation God
> offers is not dependent upon any work of man.

Not quite. He says that a man can't save himself by
works. He doesn't say that other men, acting as
the arm of the Church, won't deliver the Word.

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. )))

John McComb schrieb:
> Razzer wrote:
>
>
>>Hello.
>>
>>After reading this group's FAQ on the "almah" dispute, I was wondering
>>more and more about the accuracy of the Septuagint. I understand from
>>the FAQ that it was translated by those who were fluent in the
>>language, and I also understand from a quick search that it is rather
>>close to the Masoretic text. However, I was rather curious if there was
>>any more information on the original translators. While they have may
>>have been fluent in their language, were they fluent in Greek?
>>Moreover, was Greek still at a stage where there was really no one
>>unified dialect but several slightly differing ones? Then was the
>>Septuagint widely accepted, or was it confined to a few groups?
>
>
> I'm not th