In article , lsenders{at}hotmail.com
says...
>
>
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> In article ,
>>
>> I understand the implication of the tenses fully. But I do NOT find
>any support
>> for your disastrous bad dogma in any of John's epistles.
>>
>
>That's because your fail in your theology

No such fall...

> from the very start in
>disallowing the sin of Adam passing onto the entire **race**

I didn't 'disallow' it. God Himself does, when He forbade that the son be
punished for the sins of the father.

> of which
>he was a federal representative (Rom 5).

I notice the term "federal representative" is NOWHERE in Rom 5.
Must be only in
your oh-so-fertile imagination.

>  So the very presuppositions
>out of which you form your system of theology is wrong.  Get the
>foundation off kilter just a bit and the entire house is out of wack.

But since it is YOU who sees "federal representative" where it is
conspicuously
ABSENT, it is YOUR foundation that is off kilter. And not by just a little bit,
either.

>The "disastrous bad dogma" is your refusal to accept the depravity  of
>man, -mankind.

No, the disastrous bad dogma is your denial that God made everything good and
very good, so that even after the Fall, there is something good in fallen man,
something worth saving.


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( 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} 2/28/05 1:34:12 AM ---