Bart Goddard wrote:
> > Come on Bart, you're smarter than this reply.  If you don't know
> > (internal) anything about the object in which one has placed his
> > faith, then how can he place his faith in that object to begin
with.
> > You confuse notitia with exhaustive understanding.
>
>
> So first you assert that faith needs an object.  Then you
> contradict yourself by saying "place his faith".  It's clear
> that you think that faith is a substance that a man carries
> around inside him (even though he has no object) and then
> when he finds a worthy object, he can then take this
> substance and "place it" in the object.
>
> If faith needs an object, then the phrase "place faith in"
> makes no sense.
>
???????  Is it a blind spot with you?  Is it hidden or is it blocked?
Your logic or reasonability is, to be kind, faulty.
>
> > Bart, the rest of your rebuttal is illogical.  One must first
conceive
> > a thing before one can move toward it.  One is not saved simply by
> > turning away.  One must also turn toward.
>
> One is saved because Christ moves.

Christ died for all men but it is clear that not all men respond to His
offer of salvation.  So it is clear that there must be something more.
Just knowing about a thing and actually placing one's weight upon are
two very different things.
>
>Once again, your self-righteous
> theology rears its ugly head.  We don't save ourselves by
> moving toward God.  As long as you cling to salvation-by-works,
> you will continue to make these nonsense statements.
>
This conclusion is almost laughable if it wasn't for being so obtuse.
How many years and how many posts have I defended sola fide and sola
gratia?  Your reply indicates an overwhelming desire to only refute,
not to understand.

((( 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} 1/19/05 10:34:34 AM ---