Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Atheists United questions (was: Fwd: 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 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:
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 email@example.com, "Robert Bowman"
> <robertbowman@v...> wrote:
> > Jeep_dj5,
> > Take a look at the following web page:
> > 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@...
- 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 youI was addressing what I thought was Jeep's more fundamental
> must admit that there has to be one real truth.
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 mostTrue, they cannot all be right. And the Godhead might fit some
> 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.
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 doesnt guaranteeI think so too ... so long as those different faiths don't
> salvation, any many individuals of many different faiths will hear the
> words of the shepherd and heed his voice.
"differ" so greatly that they lose or deny the Jesus and gospel of
Scripture. Thanks for writing.