dnatree wrote:

> Bart Goddard wrote:
>> No they don't.  This is just your excuse for abandoning
>> sound theology.  Either we should listen to what God
>> says (the Word) or what our intuition says.
>
> Neither intuition nor interpretation forsaw the fires, hurricanes, and
> tsunami.

You're trying very hard to change "Scripture" into
"interpretation."
God has spoken to us, and we don't need "interpretation", because
we have Scripture.  Calling sound doctrine drawn from Scripture
"interpretation" is nothing but a way to deprecate Scripture.
You don't have the nerve to denouce God's Word directly, so
you try to introduce a degree of separation.  "I don't deny what
God said, I just deny what someone said God said."  The problem
is that in the case of Scripture, "what someone said God said"
is exactly the same as "what God said."  So you end up gainsaying
God after all.


> This is not an argument,
> this is a chance to see the smallest of points overlooked.

Funny.  Real funny.  You worry about the smallest of points,
while overlooking the largest of all possible points: God's
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.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/31/05 2:06:10 PM ---