>1.  You don't even know the doctrine against which
>you are arguing.  Further, you admit you don't know it, because
>you need it defined for you.

I don't need it defined for me. I know what it is. I wanted to see if
you knew. You whole point is impotent.

>2.  You are also aware the thinness of the ice upon which you
>are skating, since you feel the need to artificially restrict
>Steve's reply to 25 words or less.  If you're not afraid of
>the truth, then why not allow Steve the freedom to defend
>his position.

You are either skimming the posts and not comprehending or deliberately
misrepresenting what I said. I asked for Steve to provide a definition
of the trinity in 25 words or less. Why should that be so hard? As far
as his explaining it he can pontificate at will.  Please pay attention
or remain silent.

>3.  You dodge Steve's point that what you posted was
>patently false in two fatal ways: A.  The doctrine
>of the Trinity was not of pagan origins and B.  The
>doctrine was not a 3rd Century concoction.

the doctrine of the trinity is pagan. the trinity was unknown before
the third century. Once he provides a definition of the "trinity" we
will see why this is so. Nothing he has posted has shown the trinity
was known prior to Nicea. nada. The mere fact that certain ante-Nicene
Christians spoke in language that *sounds* like the trinity to you- it
was not a formal doctrine until the 3rd Century. Once Steve and anybody
gives a definition of the trinity we can proceed. Believe or not there
are various opinions as to what the trinity is amongst so-called
Christians. So tell what the trinity is in your mind.

>The Gospel message is that God saves us.  Probably every
>heresy that there ever was or will be gainsays that simple
>message.

I wholdeheartedly agree.

>Somehow, someway, every heresy boils down to the
>statement that man can in some way atone for sin.  Either
>by claiming that Jesus was a mere man,

where do you get that one? What do you mean bu mere "man" and what does
that have to do with salvation?

>or asserting some
>sort of "faith plus works" theology,

If you have true faith there will be works but you cannot earn
salvation by works. (James 2:17,22, 26). I'm not sure what this has to
do with the trinity though.

 >or a "decision theology"

Please explain.

((( 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.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/19/05 11:59:02 PM ---