wrote:

>> The point here is that you are not consistant.  You give
>> lip service to these concepts, but then you state doctrines
>> which flatly contradict them.  If you weren't so illogical,
>> this would bother you.
>>
>
> There is logic and then there is common sense.

There is no logic nor common sense which allows P and
(not P) to be true at the same time.  Either Jesus'
sacrifice was sufficient or it was not.   You assert
both.  Contradiction.  Whose common sense would buy
into what you are saying?


The fact that you consider yourself, and not Scripture,
the "Final Authority", pretty much sums up your problem.


> Secondly, I am going to proceed to defend the point that Reformed
> Protestantism is the ONLY system which can consistently provide a
> valid defense for Biblical Christianity.

Except for the glaring errors, such as denying the Real Presence
of Christ in the Eucharist.



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} 1/27/05 2:49:15 AM ---