Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Atheists United questions (was: Fwd: questions)

Expand Messages
  • Cynthia H.
    Atheists United Questions I ve hyperlinked this above so that anyone who clicks on that link can get there. Sometimes written out links can be too long for
    Message 1 of 78 , Jul 13, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
       
      I've hyperlinked this above so that anyone who clicks on that link can get there.  Sometimes written out links can be too long for the Yahoo Mail so it breaks up into pieces.  Best thing to do is to hyperlink it as I did above.
       
      CH

      Eric Pement <eric.pement@...> wrote:
      Dear jeep_dj5,

         I'm writing you offline since my comment isn't relevant to the
      biblicalapologetics mailing list. On 13 Jul 2005 at 8:23, you said:

      > the link doesn't work. 
      > what is your reply to the RCC's reasoning of  "necessary evil"?   is
      > that good or bad?
      >
      >
      > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Bowman"
      > <robertbowman@v...> wrote:
      > > Jeep_dj5,
      > >
      > > Take a look at the following web page:
      > >
      > >
      > http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/worldview
      > _apolo
      > > getics/bowman-responsetoau.html

         When you look at a link like this, which was artificially broken
      into two or three lines by the mailing software at Yahoo!, you can't
      just "click it" and go. You have to put it back together manually and
      enter the complete url (up to and including the ".html" at the end)
      into your web browser.

         I just did this myself a few minutes ago, and the link is valid.

         As for the war issue, I would ask, "Necessary for whom?" War might
      be necessary for a nation to perserve its independence, for a people
      to stand up against genocide, but war may not be necessary for the
      survival of the Christian church worldwide, and it may also be better
      for me to die than for me to kill someone else.

         Food for thought.

      --
      Eric Pement - eric.pement@...
    • Eric Pement
      Replying to Robert Bassett: ... I was addressing what I thought was Jeep s more fundamental question about which religion was true. Since his question mixed in
      Message 78 of 78 , Jul 20, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Replying to Robert Bassett:

        Thanks for replying. On 19 Jul 2005 at 12:15, you said:

        > I do agree with what you say about religious hypocrisy Eric but you
        > must admit that there has to be one real “truth”.

        I was addressing what I thought was Jeep's more fundamental
        question about which religion was true. Since his question mixed in
        world religions, Christian denominations, and cults, it was my view
        that the best way to frame a response was as I did: the Christian
        religion is true, but being part of the "right church" won't save
        you. I think this is the basics for further discussion.

        > The Godhead must be either the trinity as described by RC and most
        > Protestants, God and the glorified man Christ as described by JW and
        > others or maybe 3 separate beings as described by Mormons. They cannot
        > all be right.

        True, they cannot all be right. And the Godhead might fit some
        different configuration altogether (binitarian, unitarian,
        modalistic, panentheistic, etc.). I acknowledge that on a descriptive
        level, the law of noncontradiction holds.

        My assertion, for Jeep's sake, is that even believing in the
        "right" understanding of Godhead is not enough. As I said to him in
        my last message:

        EP> In the last analysis, Bible knowledge without eternal life
        EP> is worthless.

        I think that holds for knowledge of true doctrines as well. In my
        understanding, a person could conceptually believe in the "right" or
        ultimately most correct understanding of theology, christology,
        pneumatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and all the rest, and still
        not be "saved." Salvation is not obtained by intellectual assent even
        to correct propositions and statement. Salvation is based on a
        personal decision of the will to turn from sin and trust in Christ as
        your sin-bearer, master, and risen Lord.

        There are components of this decision that involve ideas (what is
        sin? what does "risen" mean? etc.), but there are additional
        components that require will, volition, allegiance, faith, and so on.

        > I do agree though that participation in any religion doesn’t guarantee
        > salvation, any many individuals of many different faiths will hear the
        > words of the shepherd and heed his voice.

        I think so too ... so long as those different faiths don't
        "differ" so greatly that they lose or deny the Jesus and gospel of
        Scripture. Thanks for writing.

        --
        Eric Pement
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.