The art of Robert M. Cicione.

Links to arts organizations and programs in the state, with synopses.

"entropy" wrote in message
news:06DE6C6E-D0EE-BA8F-46D0-3C2FEBF5EAFF@srcbs.org...
> gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote...
> >
> > wrote in message
> > > So reading
> > > your bible, though very admirable, is not enough. One must have true
> > > faith, believing Christ is God and that the Holy Spirit is God as
well,
> > > instructing us in the truth of His revelation. Without the Spirit,
you
> > > are only capacitated to humanistically reason what this or that
passage
> > > speaks of. Word & the Spirit. You must have both or you have nothing
> > > at all.
> >
> > One must not only read the Bible, one must believe it to be saved.
>
> That is not Scriptural. What the Bible says is that belief in Christ
> is saving, not belief in the Bible per se.
>
> John 3:16

I agree.

But we need to realize that "salvation" is used in more than one way
in Scripture. One can be "saved" from shipwreck, saved from sickness,
saved from physical death, saved from all kinds of error, and other things.

What John 3:16 refers to is salvation from sin.

If people believe Scripture they are saved from all sorts of error.

Further, as Christ said,
John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote
of me.

Thus we see that a believing of the Bible in general has some relationship
to
believing in Christ and what He said.

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. )))

Bart Goddard wrote:
> gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > So nothing. Just wanted to mention that most evangelical
> > Christians,
> > who believe the Bible, and take it to be the only rule of
> > faith, reject
> > the Calvinist position.
>
> And that underscores the fundamental flaw with the "neo-
> evangelical" position. They do not, in fact, _take_
> Scripture to be inerrant (in whatever sense of the word)
> but, have considered Scripture, and _judged_ it to be
> correct. To neo-evangelicals, Scripture gets its validity,
> not from what it is (God's Word) but from the faith which
> the neo-evangelical places in it. Since this amounts to
> having a higher standard than Scripture, (namely, the
> ruler by which one _decides_ that Scripture is correct)
> it should be clear that neo-evangelicals are not Scripturally
> based, but rather base their doctrine on their own judgement.

What is a "neo-evangelical?"


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a