Matthew Johnson <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:1105A65B-A49E-8E9E-F1D0-71D1DE7084E3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Are you deliberately misunderstanding what Helmut was referring to? He
> was clearly NOT referring to the difference between proper and
> improper praise. He was referring to your habit of jumping to the
> conclusion that something is "works theology".
The reason a certain style of praise might be improper is
that it teaches synergism. Since you can't seem to keep
two ideas in your head at the same time, maybe you should
drop out of the discussion.
> The Truth IS static as God Himself says He is unchangable. Again,
> you have blurred the distinction between Law and Gospel. To say
> "the truth has to be done" leaves an im****tant issue unsaid. The
> follow up question is "what is accomplished when the truth is done"?
> Salvation? That's implied, but it is heresy.
> ---------end quote from msg-id
> <819E18C8-5840-AE95-E865-6EFE751AF3D7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This argument makes sense _only_ if you believe that if it is 'done',
> then it is a salvation by works.
If there's anything that succinctly points up your complete
ignorance of simple logical forms, this is it. The truth of
a statement has nothing to do with the truth of its converse.
(Most folk would learn that the first day of college math course.)
>>Lex orandi lex credendi.
>
> And _Anglican_ saying, not a Lutheran one!
So? As ususal, you comment is irrelevant. What's relevant
here (and everywhere), is whether this (and any) statement is
true.
> BTW: contrary to your claim in another post in this thread, there _is_
> such a thing as "faith in the head[mind]". But that is not saving
> faith.
Here's another example of your complete inability to follow
a discussion. The "faith" Helmut refered to was saving faith.
I said such faith is in the heart. The fact that there is
(or might be) a "head faith" is irrelevant to the exchange.
Yet somehow you find this "contrary". Just more of your
obsession with other people's errors to the exclusion of any
constructive discussion.
> So no, I do not believe that the formula for salvation is "faith plus
> works".
Hmmm...I could of sworn you've said it plainly and in so many words.
But a googling shows that I must have mixed you up with one of
our "faith plus works" defenders.
>>Generalities which serve no purpose in the argument except to impugn
>>my character.
>
> But that is _itself_ a rash generalization. You most certainly do not
> know that that is Helmut's motive.
The discussion is not about Helmut's motives, but about the
motives behind certain sorts of "praise." Your so obsessed with
finding errors that you can't imagine anyone else NOT being
obsessed. But the fact is, I'm not obsessed with Helmut's
motives or what he believes or even whether he's Lutheran.
It's just funny that you can't read my post in any other light
than the black light of your own sick obsession.
>>> When we look into the Bible, such an allegation is not made,
>
>>Of course it is. God says two things in Scripture: "Sacrifice
>>to Me" and "Your sacrifices insult Me". This paradox, which
>>appears first in the OT, is the subject of the paper. It should
>>be clear that in Scripture there are cases where things that
>>look like proper wor****p are not proper wor****p.
>
> Now what did Helmut ever say to contradict this principle? To put it
> more accurately: what did Helmut ever say that you _think_ contradicts
> this principle?
To answer your question directly, he said, "Such an allegation
is not made." Then he cited verses in which the allegation is
un-made. The plain fact is that the allegation IS made in
other verses, and he assertion that it's not made is an instance
of not reconciling paradoxical passages. (Duh.)
> equivocating
You really, really ought to stop using that word until you
find out what it means.
Bart
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
((( 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.
)))
|
